Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman from 1970 to 2020 (is it cheating if half his reign was in the last century?)
Anyway, Sultan Qaboos abolished slavery his first year in power, established the national currency, laid out decrees to expand Oman's 10 km long road network in 1970 to over 60,000 km by the end of his rule (half of which is paved) and construct desalinisation plants, universities and more. Qaboos also put Oman in an excellent diplomatic position as a neutral state over the years for mediating other Arab or Islamic conflicts, most notably between Saudi Arabia and Iran, while economically, Oman's GDP total rose over tenfold due to exploitation of oil deposits.
During the Arab Spring in 2011, protester demands were mostly met by Sultan Qaboos, although not without bloodshed. Oman remains a rentier state with an underdiversified economy and no separation of powers, but considering the bad hand geography has dealt it, Sultan Qaboos did excellently. Especially for a Middle Eastern man whose homosexuality was basically an open secret.
I think Oman is a really interesting country diplomatically as well. Under Sultan Qaboos they've managed to become friendly with everyone and basically position themselves as a regional mediator
In addition he also quelled a conflict that could have easily turned Oman into Yemen, mainly by investing in more regional development. And unlike the other Gulf states, the country actually treats migrant workers with a lot of respect. He was not without his flaws, but if you compare Oman to Yemen, Saudi, and the UAE it's really clear who made the best plans
Made the best plans? Oman has entirely failed with its Omanization scheme, failed to diverfiy their economy and has always treated migrants terribly. Yes he managed to turn Oman into a functioning country, opened it up to the world and made it into an effective diplomatic country for stability but it has massive problems to deal with domestically.
I'm just curious, how did you know about the homosexuality thing? *not denying it* but its not as open as you make it seem. Have you lived here?
+ S.Q was a great leader, probably not the best economy wise, but his political insight and vision was indeed outstanding
I also lived there for 15 years with family still there, it is common knowledge amongst not only the local population but also throughout the other Gulf states
Upvoted for "most interesting nomination," and given the fact that no one seems worthy of of even "3rd best " so far this century.
That said:
>half of which is paved
...after *50 years* of rule doesn't exactly scream worth of "best head of state in the world."
It sounds like it, but paving roads in the middle of the desert where there's no traffic is pointlessly wasteful and actually the worse decision to make. Oman was only connected by camel caravans in 1970; the country used to be called Muscat and Oman (the connected part and the not connected part), Qaboos chose to rename the country to just Oman to reflect how Oman became united under his rule.
Paul Kagame - Not great with election fairness, but he took an impoverished country split by civil war, and now rules over a country with a reasonable Constitution supported by most Rwandans, and he achieved many development goals set by 2020.
Kagame definitely depends on how you classify good, since a lot of people here are also including moral calculations
I think if you take a narrow view, Kagame is probably the definitive answer to the question OP posed. He turned a country that had just experienced one of the largest genocides in history into Africa's biggest success story. Racial tensions are nonexistence (or well, locked away really well), the military is extremely professional and effective and corruption is very low for a country of Rwanda's stature.
Kagame is competent, not corrupt, driven and he's improved the life of the average Rwandan massively
Of course this good governance comes on the back of Rwandan nationalism, which has a dark side. Kagame regularly engages in extrajudicial killings for example, and most notably, he had a pretty large role in the mess in the DRC.
At one point Rwanda was extracting and selling resources from the DRC to fund that good governance *in Rwanda*. That's pretty morally questionable I'd say lol
Overall, he's a pretty classic "good national leader" who's not great for everyone else
Yes, I think that this a balanced approach to some of his worst aspects.
You made me realize that while many people yearn for a brilliant statesman to appear in their country and solve some of its problems, you really really don't want an era defining statesman to appear in a neighboring country.
I don't think it's really fair to blame him for the Congo Wars themselves. The First Congo War especially I think Rwanda was 100% justified in invading. The Second Congo War is a lot murkier because it seems like basically everyone was operating on the assumption that the war was going to start anyways, so it was kind of a self fulfilling prophecy
What might be disqualifying is how he acted in the 2nd Congo War itself
Kagame was certainly a gifted military leader and he's proved exceptionally deft at gaining rents from the West. I believe you that his record on development is good, but I'd want to fast forward in time to see how well the system he's created would stand after his death. I also feel that he ought to lose points for not liberalizing in the slightest during his tenure, and I feel that assassinating dissidents abroad (as he's done in South Africa and the Netherlands) is risky and counterproductive for him.
It remains to be seen whether Rwanda can grow its economy under his system. There are early signs of progress but it remains extremely poor. He’s gotten them from $250 gdp per capita to $800 which is a big bump but miles from having a reasonable standard of living.
Had America led by France not overthrown Muammar Gaddafi North Korea would have long given up their nuclear weapons. North Korea saw what they did in Libya and aggressively advanced its nuclear program and now Japan and South Korea are at risk of nuclear annihilation
In terms of long term geopolitical ramifications, toppling Gaddafi was a bigger blunder.
But yes, I think it would be hard to argue the Invasion of Iraq wasn't a blunder.
Gaddafi was cooperative with the West, openly supported the War on Terror and was one of the main stabilising elements in North Africa. He voluntarily gave up his nuclear program and other weapons and the West immediately toppled him.
That destabilised North Africa leading to the rise of several terrorist groups in the region. Lead to a massive increase in illegal immigration from North Africa into Europe which they are still dealing with. Most importantly it also destroyed any belief there might have been that the West could be trusted if you chose to cooperate with them, which lead to both North Korea and Iran ramping up their own nuclear programs.
Why not? The toppling of Gadaffi is used as a case-book example in universities of what not to do, re: International Relations, UN, etc. There's a reason why it was considered an illegal action.
From a general "don't start a war unless it's absolutely needed" perspective, yes. However, Saddam had been a warmonger, and his sons had a reputation to be even more sadistic. So it may have prevented worse, but that's hard to tell.
If you're looking for blunders in the Middle East, look at how the treatment of Iran turned it into a theocracy.
IMHO, the main blunder was that it was based on a lie as Chilcot report show. It hugely tarnished Western reputation outside the west. You can see it now when it comes to Ukraine. No one outside western group of supporters takes any morality or international norm based calls from the west seriously. And for a good reason.
How you can blame Russia starting a war based on a lie if west started iraq2 based on a lie too?
>The West toppling Gaddafi is arguably one of the biggest geopolitical blunders of the century so far.
What do you mean? There already was a civil war because Khadafi was getting old, the conflict was getting ethnic cleansing, the circumstances were not unlike the Yugoslav war. It was a containment operation.
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the broader point, North Korea had nuclear weapons years before Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown, and long after the agreement it had made with the Clinton administration to wind down its nuclear program had been abandoned.
North Korea was never going to give up its nuclear weapons, no matter what happened in Libya.
>Had America led by France not overthrown Muammar Gaddafi North Korea would have long given up their nuclear weapons. North Korea saw what they did in Libya and aggressively advanced its nuclear program and now Japan and South Korea are at risk of nuclear annihilation
**With respect, I think it would be difficult to find an East Asian diplomat or historian who agrees with this.** There's no plausible scenario in which North Korea would ever have given up its nukes. Despite that, there are also remarkably few scenarios in which it's a threat to Japan or South Korea.
What happened to Qaddafi unnerved dictators around the world, but the Kim regime is operating with a very long institutional memory. The event that most informs the Kims' terror of downfall isn't Qaddafi's death, but the death of Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989.
For anyone new to the event, Ceausescu was overthrown in the 1989 Romanian Revolution, and he and his wife were subsequently captured, tried, and executed. (We'll be exactly 34 years removed from the latter event on December 25th this year.) Kim il-Sung (Kim Jong-un's grandfather) considered himself friends with the man, not least because Ceausescu was a great admirer of his. Romania's July Theses were patterned on what Ceausescu had seen on trips to China and North Korea in 1971. To have another state copying governmental and cultural practices based on *juche* was an enormous propaganda victory, particularly at a moment when the Kims were concerned about South Korea's growing economic and geopolitical clout. On a personal note, it also did a lot to massage Kim's ego, which was always a great way to get on his good side.
**Ceausescu's death later was a shattering blow, and Kim il-Sung was absolutely haunted by his fate.** To place this in its proper historical context, Ceausescu's death capped a year in which Communist regimes died like flies, was a little over a month following the fall of the Berlin Wall, and one of NK's major benefactor states (the USSR) was clearly circling the drain. The end of the Friendship Prices program (which the USSR ran to allow states within its sphere of influence to purchase things like oil, gas, and fertilizer at absurdly cheap rates) dates to this period as well. NK was facing much-higher prices for these commodities that it really couldn't afford to pay, and in five years, this would become the proximate reason for their 1994-1998 famine.
Imagine living in a neighborhood in which most of your neighbors' houses are on fire, your favorite neighbor just got whacked, the local heavyweight has a death-rattle cough, the protective wall is being chunked and sold to tourists, and your rent, heating, and gas bills just tripled. Late 1989 was a *desperately* bad time to be among the holdouts, and would have ratcheted the Kims' paranoia and terror considerably.
Kim Jong-un would have been a child at the time, and may even have witnessed his grandfather and father (Kim Jong-il) discussing it. The obvious conclusion for them, and for other authoritarian leaders, was that there was no realistic path out of their situation. Their control of North Korea could continue in the same fashion it had for almost half a century, or it could end in violence, and all of them would be killed by their own people. There was no societal mechanism, as there was in states like Poland, for it to end peacefully. Kim Jong-il almost certainly had a better grasp of this reality than his father did, and I don't think he failed to discuss it with his children as they got older. (Though it was Kim Jong-nam, and not Jong-un, who was the heir apparent in this period.)
**So what does this have to do with North Korea's nuclear program?** Pretty much nothing.
NK's nuclear program comfortably predates 1989. Though publicly-available intelligence is thin on the ground, especially in English, we know that NK wanted nuclear weapons as early as the 1960s and was exploring ways to get them. (Fortunately, the Chinese and the Soviets both recognized that this was a very bad idea and refused to cooperate.) The program itself dates to the mid-1980s at the very latest. North Korea wanted nukes for a variety of reasons, but principal among them was the desire for an equalizer with the major powers in the region. Korea has long described itself as "a shrimp among whales" (not without reason), and it's this mentality more than anything else that informs the Kims' perspective.
Romania was not a nuclear state, nor was it toppled from beyond its borders. Ceausescu's death did not establish any form of precedent, and (later) neither did Qaddafi's. Regardless of events elsewhere in the world, the Kims would have continued to pursue nuclear weapons, and while the incentive structure governing their behavior was undoubtedly *affected* by the fall of so many ideological allies, it was certainly not created by them. It wanted nukes before the USSR fell. It wanted nukes after the USSR fell. It wanted nukes when the famine hit and roughly a million North Koreans died. It wanted nukes when it was on good terms with South Korea: It wanted nukes when it was on bad terms with South Korea. It wanted nukes regardless of the talks it had with the U.S./Japan/SK/China/Russia, and -- absent a truly draconian inspection program -- probably would have found a way to get them regardless of whatever agreements it had made.
**Sober analyses written *long* before Qaddafi was toppled concluded that North Korea was never, ever going to give up its nuclear program.** And if I were them? I wouldn't do it either. It makes no sense and never has. It's one of the few marks of "prestige" they have as a state. It cools the regime's paranoia over invasion; they know they're a small, despised, desperately poor country, but they're a small, despised, desperately poor country with nuclear weapons. More practically, having nukes permits them some flexibility with the country's otherwise ruinously expensive and historically ineffective military. If they need to reassign whole divisions to food production to keep bellies full, they can, because it doesn't have a meaningful impact on their defense. One nuclear-tipped ballistic missile can accomplish what thousands of malnourished soldiers never could.
As to the threat NK poses to other countries, I do not contradict that this is a concern, but it's a smaller one than you might think. The #1 goal of the regime is its own survival. That interest isn't going to be served by the major players in East Asia concluding that the Kims are too dangerous to be left alone. NK wants to be just annoying and influential enough to get food aid and security concessions, but not annoying and influential enough that invasion becomes a realistic concern. (They have also long since concluded -- and I would argue correctly -- that China is more likely to do so than the U.S.)
**TL:DR:** The only way to assure that other countries give you a wide berth in geopolitics is to get an equalizer. Qaddafi's fate may have reinforced that lesson, but it did not teach it. And -- to the extent that another statesman's death informs the Kim regime's actions -- it's Nicolae Ceausescu's.
Why would they? It's not like they mind being a pariah. Most likely they would have still pursued it and still kept it regardless of US action in Iraq or Lybia
Highly doubtful, North Korea never planned on giving up its nuclear arsenal even before Gaddafi. The Kims have known for a long time thag nuclear deterrance was the only way they could hope to stay alive. Gaddafi's overthrow only solidified that for them.
Tokayev could be a sleeper pick if he’s actually serious about liberalizing Kazakhstan. He’s made big plans for the country with the economy, environment, healthcare and most importantly its institutions and has followed through on a few of them. Doing all of this while balancing influence between Russia, China, and the West has been pretty masterful so far
This comment's a winner too! Mujica legalized abortion and marijuana, donated most of his $12k salary to the poor. Perhaps a little diplomatically left-wing for Westerners, as Mujica did quite like Hugo Chavez and didn't want any hard stance against Iran, but he was a conciliatory man in disputes with Argentina and didn't fight with his predecessor AND successor, Tabare Vasquez.
He's a critic of capitalism promoting the stockpiling of material goods that don't contribute to happiness, so as head of government, he wouldn't have brought the most possible economic benefit, but he did become a symbol of simple living and progressive policies, which may be more beneficial overall. Uruguay is a stable country in a peaceful part of the world, and Mujica was a surefire contributor.
I don't mean to be that guy but I feel like a lot of these policies like legalizing abortion or marijuana are value judgements. There's nothing that inherently makes these policies "good" or "bad" besides you agreeing with them. If we just used that, this question would just be asking "which left wing leaders acheived the most this century" (since reddit is overwhelmingly lefty)
The way I took this question at least is which leaders managed to lead their countries the best separate from social policies. Things like economic progress or foreign policy, since those have more objective measures on what is a "good" outcome
You're absolutely right, economic policy is most important. That's why the legalization of marijuana in Uruguay was explicitly meant to weaken drug cartels and boost government revenue by regulating its $40M business.
For Uruguay though, a strong foreign policy is not really necessary. As I said, it's in a safe part of the world and its existence isn't under threat, and it's too far and too small to meaningfully affect the lives of people on other continents.
So in that sense, domestic social policy is the only real worry. Legalization of abortion keeps 20,000 Uruguayan women out of hospital every year, that's a good change in my eyes.
If you’ve got a womb then abortion is much more than a mere value judgment. Even if you never have one. Abortion bans have generally tended to undermine and distort gynaecology and ante-natal practice resulting in poorer outcomes for women.
It doesn't eve matter if you have a womb or not to recognize that this is more than a value judgement. Abortion bans hold back society.
But of course if abortion is banned, we have a bigger workforce which can be paid less, so we will have economic growth /s
> I don't mean to be that guy but I feel like a lot of these policies like legalizing abortion or marijuana are value judgements.
This implies that on these issues both sides are equal and it's a mere matter of opinion ("values"), whis is not true. If you look at objective measures like health, revenue and organized crime activity, legalizing marijuana and abortions is the rationally sound decision and is usually **held back** because of conservstive values. It's the prohibitive status quo that is an irrational value decision.
Is your position that those legalization moves didn’t affect geopolitics and therefore a bad answer to the OP? Even as policies that only effect the domestic citizens, legalizing both of those helps economies, public health, and prevents tension with neighbors with more progressive policies.
I read a couple of years ago this guy is actually a mafia dickhead and this image of him being a soft old man is fabricated. Any Uruguayans can confirm?
I live in Chile while he was in office and this was something the right wing politicians used to try and convince the poor folk not to vote for socialists. Like a pretty well known talking point.
Thomas Sankara.
Not this century, but within the last 100 years.
Sankara as president of Burkina Faso built schools, hospitals, infrastructure for water and roads. Free for everyone.
An environmentalist, he planted millions of trees to restore land.
He granted equal rights to all women and made FGM illegal.
...
The French didn't like how popular he was so they had him assassinated.
RIP to a real one
Hu Jintao was also great for China, for continuing in his work opening and modernizing the country. He was the last prime minister before Xi Jinping and I could imagine a future where the CCP would turn back to the openness of Hu Jintao
Lula da Silva! Was he jailed for corruption? Yes. Did he have a fair trial? Not at all. Do I think he’s innocent? Not my job to prove anything.
He took 40 million Brazilians out of extreme poverty. People were dying of starvation in Brazil’s most remote areas, and he brought food, water, and distributed money to families whose children were in school and up to date with their vaccines. He expanded access to higher education, built dozens of Federal Institutes of Education (something like Community Colleges, if compared to the US system). Brazil was the 6th biggest economy in the world during his tenure.
His comeback after serving as President for eight years and defeating the incumbent, who spent billions trying to buy votes, proves how grateful people are for his previous government.
I think one of the major issues causing this is that autocrats are in power longer so, naturally, will have a longer list of accomplishments. Even a very competent Mexican president (constitutionally limited to one 6 year term) is going to struggle immensely to accomplish as much as a middling autocrat in power for 23 years.
Not to mention how in pluralistic governments both blame and credit are shared whereas in autocracies autocrats will typically find it easier to take credit and divert blame.
Definitely too many autocrats in this thread though IMO.
That's the thing, if you are serious about doing something for the benefit of your country you end up being labeled an autocrat by the western powers since they don't really like being given the finger with their pigeonholing lawfare game... el Salvador for example.
Which is very weird. Especially as autocratic systems have proven again and again to be very unstable and more importantly *militarily weak*.
Look at how the autocratic societies of Russia, China and North Korea botched all of their opportunities and chances.
Meanwhile democracies due to internal competition and never reaching a consensus remain strong.
This isn't because Putin, Xi or Kim are stupid individuals. It's because *autocracies are inherently inferior to democracies from a systematic point of view*.
If you were an immoral machiavellian character that didn't care about anything except the superiority of your own nation/civilization you would ensure your system stays democratic while ensuring all other systems stay autocratic so that you always have an upper hand.
Hell why do you think NATO and the west is playing a balancing act against Putin. We don't *want* him to lose power. Russia is way more controllable and weak as an autocracy compared to a potential juggernaut a democratic Russia would be.
And I can't even imagine how much of a powerhouse a democratic China would be. There's no way a democratic China wouldn't be the #1 power in the world right now.
For all intents and purposes the west is extremely lucky that Russia and China are autocratic, and therefor weak. The west wouldn't stand a chance against a proper democratic Russia + China.
So? Good autocrats are good.
If your country has one of the highest standard of living, life expectancy, extremely low poverty rate, low crime, low corruption, then what's the problem?
There is very, very, very few of them.
There is maybe one semi-autocratic country (Singapore, which is still democracy) in maybe top 30 countries in whole world in all above mentioned characteristics.
Autocrats are usually in power for a long time, and that's why people usually incorrectly attribute natural long term development that coincidentally happened under given autocrat to be thanks to that autocrat.
Hear me out: Gordon Brown. Not the most inspiring choice, but he oversaw the massive jump in living standards under Blair, then managed to mitigate the worst of the financial crisis when he was PM.
You mean the guy that wouldn't shut up about ending boom and bust while letting the City regulate itself into CDS etc resulting in 2008? You mean the genius who did PPP to help bankrupt the NHS* (*but after my mates rent us the hospitals for 30 years first)? The guy who told the Treasury not to give him recommendations after he got caught screwing up pensions? You mean that Gordon Brown? He was great!
That’s not what the question asked though.
The title is ‘who were the best heads of government in this century so far’.
Beyond questions about the legitimacy of government, consent to be ruled and all of that, there are not many I can think of who were a net gain to the countries they were in charge of. If you remember the Thatcher years, and Britain in the early 90s, then I think the huge strides made at the start of this century are evident - even if it would have been good to see them go a lot further.
Annoys me so much that people genuinely looked at the pig fucker and thought that he was more suitable for office than Gordan Brown. It just shows everything wrong with how the media represent elections where appearance is more important than competence and seriousness. I think Cameron would be the worst modern leader if his arrogance hadn't led us on a path with at least two significantly worse leaders.
Lula made tremendous strides in fighting extreme poverty in Brazil and safeguarding the Amazon and its indigenous people during his initial two terms in office, as well as defeating a dangerous would-be strongman in the 2022 election. Might be worth consideration.
And went to jail because of corruption and want to distance himself from the West while getting closer and more dependent on China.
This next one is my personal opinion but while Brazil grew it's economy a lot in his previous government I think it also condemned Brazil to become a middle income trapped country and it will never become a global power with such a resource dependent and monopolized economy
If you look even a little bit into the details surrounding the "corruption" that landed him in jail you will quickly find that the whole thing was bogus.
Lula’s position on Russia seems to be changing, [today](https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/mundo/putin-sera-convidado-para-cupula-do-g20-no-brasil-mas-sabe-o-que-pode-acontecer-se-vier-diz-lula,78b5b43ff396a0a37b110608db962d09342c0sl4.html) he said Putin is invited to come in G20 in Brazil where he will be arrested.
If he continues it in this direction and even manages to Mercosul to trade with EU, he might actually restore his legacy even with centrists who are now very critical of him and actually be genuinely worthy of this nomination.
The corruption trial was a joke - not a Brazilian just interested - they could never even prove he owned the house. To which he had never visited and seemed to have no idea. In fact if his kickback was being given a house, one wonder how he would’ve claimed it given he had no ownership record. The whole thing was clearly a concoction of his rivals, aided by a US state department hostile to his continued strengthening of Petrobras the state oil company, which was subsiding his social reforms, at the cost of the Brazilian elite who were used to owning essential component of the nation.
Can we consider Brazil for any positive notion here?
The internet is still flooded with men, women, and children getting their heads (slowly) sawed off by cartels. New videos seem to come out every day. Whatever is happening in Brazil is not good. In the rest of the world, food gets delivered by motorbike uber drivers, in Brazil, the uber drivers are the hitmen. In fact, I've seen such traumatic footage coming out of that country, that I should send your countries government a medical bill for the trauma. And you can say that is the cartels doing, or that it happens in this area or that, but ultimately, it is the government responsible for putting an end to it. But looking at how badly the 2016 Olympics was run, It doesn't surprise me that murder runs rampent.
My granddad left the country because his lefty college buddies got thrown in prison without charge, so don't forget that Singapore wasn't all unicorns and rainbows.
There's always trade-offs. The universe isn't all sunshine and rainbows.
As a Singaporean who is always striving for better ultimately you can't not admit that Singapore is on a different stratosphere entirely to the rest of Southeast Asia.
For some reason when it comes to outside perspectives on our country it always seems like the ones who want to see the good don't want to see the bad, and the ones who see the bad don't want to see the good.
The truth is neither Disneyland with the Death Penalty nor completely blissful paradise, but to be a developed somewhat cosmopolitan city-state and major financial centre from a country with the GDP per capita of Nigeria in 1965 is not something that should be waved away lightly.
FWIW, a lot of young people are burdened by the problems of capitalism, and many wish to go somewhere where the pace of life is less grueling. It's the choice I made myself, but that's the world we live in no?
The working class are not free from rising inequality and the weight of capitalism anywhere in the world.
Where did your granddad net out if you don't mind me asking?
>Singapore is on a different stratosphere entirely to the rest of Southeast Asia.
Well yeah, it's only worth travelling to as the stop-over. Not the party destination the rest of SEA is. Progress is not always good when you're looking for a good time, but I guess it's good for you lot that have to live there. Thailand's still my favourite.
That's because Singapore is a authoritarian country, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's got one of the highest standard of living in the world, top 5 life expectancy in the world, great social programs, incredibly low crime, a thriving economy, and is involved in no wars.
Like, it's quite amazing compared to almost every other country in the world.
Some people don't see that as a bad thing.
Of course the problem is that people like LKY or Tito are one in billions and having anyone else lesser wield the power they had spelled disasaters.
>having anyone else lesser wield the power they had spelled disasaters
Singapore's still chugging along reasonably well, and it seems plausible the country will transition to multi-party democracy if LKY's successors keep underperforming expectations.
The transition might even be relatively smooth, given the considerable institutional infrastructure Singapore already has in place to enable it.
LKY successors did not hold the power LKY had. Not even close. And I'm even talking about the ability to personally sway a nation, not just judicial power.
I give a lot of LKY though for knowing that Singapore could not continue on with the iron fist he held and gradually letting go off power. Honestly I think there's a lot of merit to having a benevolent dictator do nation building and gradually transitioning to a democracy, but the problem is a) finding an actually benevolent dictator and b) finding one that was able to do nation-building at the scale of LKY.
Remains to be seen if Singapore can make a transition into a democracy.
LKY succeeded in moving Singapore away from a one person cult of personality dictatorship, but it's still technocratic one-party rule.
Nah, Bukele rides a wave of populist sentiment because he has 'dealt' (hoovered up street level gangs while legitimising their international, more serious operations) with gangs. Pity if you aren't in a gang but in the wrong place - you'll be headed to jail. Pity if you speak out against Bukele - believe it or not, straight to jail. Already in jail? Somehow, you'll be moved to what is functionally a prison camp, regardless of what you have done.
So Bukele *has* cleaned up the streets of El Salvador, but as Salvadoran newspaper El Faro (now hounded out of the country, into exile in neighbouring Costa Rica) - and specialist international outlets - have noted, what has really happened is that Bukele has cut a deal with gang leaders to get amazing press by ignoring what the gangs are actually doing.
MS-13 (and to a lesser extent, rivals Barrio 18) is seen by the west as a street gang, but it's really an extremely large Transnational Organised Criminal organisation. It operates drug smuggling in Europe, people trafficking in Mexico, and controls most of Salvadorean life. By overlooking what the gangs are doing at the top level - particularly the much more lucrative cartel behaviours overseas - the government has reached an agreement to jail all the knuckle draggers in return for good publicity (which as you can see on Reddit, works well).
Bukele wants to be president for life, and in his late 30s, that is an extremely long time to be in control. With the ability to 'govern' without worrying about gang violence, he has used this time to crack down on the press and anyone who criticises him. There are reports (emphasis on reports, though the reporters are relatively reliable sources) of police offers adding tattoos to arrestees to make them appear as if they are gang members, which functionally carries an automatic life sentence these days. The expulsion of El Faro is extremely worrying.
This is also partly behind the decision to accept Bitcoin as a 'real' currency - as allowing untraceable money to move freely massively helps these groups. This is a massive, massive boost for MS-13, as it helps them to avoid sanctions entirely, and get European drug money back to El Salvador (and also funds into the US, where it runs most of its recruiting operations).
A lot of El Salvador needs to be understood in terms of the horrendous civil war that raged until 1992. The country is still recovering, and the effect of US intervention has made it very difficult for anyone to get by - hence the emergence of gangs. It is just a shame that the largest gang is now the government, led by Bukele himself. As Mexico found out, once regions of a country effectively become narco-states, it is significantly harder to resolve the problems which have taken root. This is what is now happening in El Salvador.
MS-13 could be sorted out *relatively* easily. The US government could crack down on the recruiting of young migrants and prison populations, and Europe is trying to block the drug trafficking. Bukele's popularity (and the false believe he has 'solved' the gang problem) does stand in the way of real efforts to resolve serious crime in what is (was?) probably Latin America's most violent country.
Worth it? Not in the long term.
Theoretically, there was nothing stopping Bukele from arresting all the criminals, the deal did not need to be made - and yet it was.
Theoretically =/= Practically. The El Salvadoran Government's sole concern is the well-being of its citizens. When stuck between a rock and a hard place of course they would and should prioritize their own people over foreigners. It's Europe and the US' problem if they don't crack down on MS-13 abroad.
It's easy for those in relatively safer states to sit on our high horse and judge those less fortunate and more desperate on what they do in that desperation.
Edit: Leaving this here, but this comment was made before I read the rest of the OP's comments.
I have first-hand experience of all of this - I am not just talking out of my arse on what is going on.
These gangs have become significantly more powerful as a result of Bukele pretending (and that's what this is - a charade) to have solved the crisis. I do not, for one second believe that a problem that has plagued El Salvador for 20 years was resolved in mere months by someone who was more or less a political novice. It doesn't happen without the gangs agreeing - MS-13 and Barrio 18 both have the ability to put up a fight if they don't want to be arrested, they aren't neighborhood gangs (see my comment and follow-up [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/18aqtuv/who_were_the_best_heads_of_goverment_in_this/kc0zzm8/?context=3) for some sources on this). The fact they have just quietly surrendered in the literal tens of thousands should be pause for thought (this also says nothing about the reports of political enemies being accused of being gang members to be locked away without trial).
The problem that Europe and the US have is that MS-13 operates in El Salvador at the top level, but uses networks in the US and elsewhere to recruit (exploiting issues with the US prison system to get vulnerable minors into the group). It being 'their problem' isn't very accurate - especially as it is primarily Salvadorans who are being trafficked north by MS-13. The gangs aren't dead, they're now just ignored, much the same way cartels in Mexico operate in many regions of the country.
So what was the payoff? You are totally correct that a government should be concerned with its own people first, but the situation that has been created is extremely similar to Mexico in the late 1990s-early 2000s. Handing over real power to these groups, rather than allowing them to fight for scraps has only created massive criminal organisations that are even more deeply rooted at a much higher (and more insidious level) of Salvadoran society, and cannot now be rounded up and shipped off to prison because they have penetrated the establishment itself.
The (seeming) reduction in crime is so massive that it is easy to sit abroad and comment on it - and it is true that in the immediate term, the average person on the streets of San Salvador is much less likely to be violently robbed than at any point in the last few years. The problem is that it has condemned the country as a whole - not just to an impending Bukele dictatorship, but also to being entrenched even more deeply under the boot of the *pandillas*. Not being shot at in the street is undoubtedly an improvement, but it doesn't alone fix the myriad problems that make El Salvador a great place for gangs in the first place - or the problems that put innocent lives in danger.
We look at the headline figures and assume they tell the story - but the truth is both significantly more complex and concerning once we get down to what is really happening. The drug trade is picking up on Belize, Guatemala and El Salvador as waypoints to smuggle drugs via land, and the drug war is decimating a country that is much less able to deal with what has arrived than Mexico - but with government blessing, it is now much more able to hide it from prying eyes.
As an aside, this is actually pretty similar to what happened in Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge - a strongman came in to bring security and save the country - now it's entirely run by transnational gangs who are displacing villages and burning businesses, and as they mostly part of the formalised power structure of the country, there is no recourse at all for those affected.
I mean the crime reductions are absolutely undeniable and the reason the vast majority of Salvadorians are fans of Bukele. What Western NGOs regarding unfair detention doesn't matter a ton to the average person who finally feels safe to walk the streets without being shot
Yes, but reducing crime by legalising more serious (and societally damaging) crime is not really a result, it's just papering over the cracks.
This is what Mexico did for a long time - and look at northern Mexico now.
Ok, 'legitimise' is a better word. My bad.
The fact remains though, allowing gangs to become significantly more powerful - which *intentionally ignoring international trafficking* undoubtedly is - will only come back to bite the people of El Salvador in a decade or so, even if the short term effect is fewer criminal on the street.
We have seen this playbook across several countries with similar problems (most notably Colombia and Mexico), and the result has not been positive.
The issues surrounding law enforcement in Latin America are not easily solved by current governments, and kicking the can down the road in favour of an easy PR win (and look at the size of that win) is simply creating a bigger, more powerful and more politically entrenched group of gangs that will rear their ugly heads later.
>The fact remains though, allowing gangs to become significantly more powerful.
Can you be more specific about what it means to allow gangs to become more powerful? Who and what are the people he's empowering, specifically?
Specifically? Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and their rivals, Barrio 18, who together are the two main *pandillas* (gangs) in the country.
There has been some outstanding investigative reporting, mostly from people like Carlos Martínez and the team at El Faro (although Index On Censorship covered this story a few years ago too) that provides the best background to a complicated situation, but here is a tl;dr:
After the Salvadoran civil war, gangs took advantage of the power vacuum in the country, which suffered from weak political control by the government in San Salvador. Fast forward to 2019, and Bukele (who had been expelled from the ruling party), the son of a wealthy family, took power promising to deal with the gang problem in the country, which was at this point, a significant issue.
It took almost no time at all for Bukele to sort out a problem that had blighted El Salvador for 2 decades - which in itself is suspicious. By 2020, he had secretly struck a deal that would see gangs prohibit their members from engaging in excessive street-level crime, as well as giving up legions of footsoldiers to authorities, which has made for the photo opportunities that we see coming out of the country today.
In return for this, Bukele pretends to have solved the crisis. This has allowed the gangs (and especially MS-13) to diversify their international operations, primarily in the US and Spain (and by extension, the EU). The gang has gone from a street group (albeit a powerful one) to an international cartel. There are some suggestions that they operate alongside the Kinahan Cartel, the biggest cartel you have never heard of, and also alongside some of the Mexican cartels, as El Salvador is one of the major starting points for mass migration, presenting a large number of vulnerable people willing to allow themselves to be trafficked north.
I've mentioned Bitcoin in this before - but it is also no coincidence that El Salvador has now officialised an untraceable form of finance at much the same time - gangs can now freely move ill-gotten wealth about with no paper trail - and even spend it normally, thanks to the new measures.
This has also allowed Bukele to accuse anyone he doesn't like of being a gang member, and with such strong rules in place, they can easily be arrested and imprisoned without trial.
My job requires me to research and write extensively about organised crime in Latin America. This is how Colombia and Mexico got into their predicaments - easy wins that gave the impression of sorting a problem, while actively making things worse. The murder rate reduction between gangs is down for now - but it won't be down forever, and once they come back, there won't be a government force capable of stopping them.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this is very reminiscent of how the Guadalajara Cartel in Mexico were left to their own devices by the government for far too long because gang violence and murders went down significantly and were seen as ‘manageable’ when they were first established. Many central figures ignored the fact that this was only a by-product of the cartel creating a monopoly on gang violence and exploiting institutional corruption. Looking at the state of modern Cartels in Mexico, I can imagine they will be regretting the decision to not intervene in the early 80s as it is now almost certainly impossible.
Can I ask you which sources you read for your research as it’s a topic I’m very interested in and would love to learn more about.
Of course, I'd be happy to share some sources.
In terms of publicly available sources (my work leads me to talk with people like the DEA, who you probably could email, if you were really interested, but obviously aren't a source I can just link), I really, really recommend El Faro. [Their website is very well translated into English](https://elfaro.net/en?rf=home) and contains the kind of on-the-ground primary reporting that is worth a thousand times one Reddit comment. It should also give you a look into how Bukele is consolidating his power, and how he is likely to go the route of Daniel Ortega in neighbouring Nicaragua. Their [Spanish language site contains more reporting](https://elfaro.net/es?rf=inicio), but will obviously need translating.
This [U.S. government report](https://www.justice.gov/media/1120601/dl?inline) is quite an interesting look into how the gang operates in the US (and the wide scope of crimes they are involved in - these are not street thugs, despite popular belief). It's worth noting it was published during the Trump era, so some of the language is a little heavy-handed, but the stats themselves are accurate and provide a chance to understand the unique nature of the gang as a transnational organisation.
Vis-a-vis the cryptocurrency discussion, [Georgetown have a well-researched report](https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2023/03/20/the-growing-use-of-cryptocurrencies-by-transnational-organized-crime-groups-in-latin-america/) that explains really clearly what is happening with drug trafficking and Bitcoin, with a focus on El Salvador and Bukele.
You are right about the broad comparisons between MS-13 and Mexican cartels. Obviously El Salvador is much smaller, but with cartels being far more decentralised, it makes it harder to deal with.
Surprisingly tricky question.
There are easy answers for the 20th century. Even if we limit it to the last 24 years. However you want to define "best," you have several good choices to choose from. Partly, that's because it's easier to see legacy with some extra decades. I don't think that's the greater part.
I think it really has been a poor century for leaders/leadership.
Trump was certainly memorable. A lot of cultural influence, but hard to call that "best." Not much policy legacy. Obama same really. Cultural impact but not much policy or legacy. Bush started Iraq/Afghanistan...That's historically significant impact, but it didn't go very well.
Xi may not totally derail China... but its hard to see a greatness legacy in his future. Putin... He's definitely a "Russian leader for the books," and he's in good company there. Best? It will take a lot of turning things around and I doubt he has time for that. I guess he has Crimea and South Ossetia.
Europe has basically no leadership. Merkel is the most prominent so far. What's her legacy? "*Kept a steady ship*?" maybe. A lot of her worldview rolled into sand at the of her tenure... so it's hard to call that "best" either.
Zelensky's in the running. It depends on how the war ends and what comes after though.
IDK. hard century for leadership. poor leaders.
Yeah as far as western leaders go there isn’t much in the past 24 years that really impressed. Part of the issue is that not much major shit happend.
I agree with you. Zelensky has the potential to become a Churchill like figure if Ukraine wins the war.
You can laugh all you want. The wars in the last century were far vaster, the diseases deadlier , the stock market crashes were bigger and the human accomplishments were more impactful . The one and only seriously significant development that happened this century so far is the cellphone . Ithe computer and the internet were invented at the end of the last century. So yeah I stand by what I said, not much major shit has happened in the last 24 years.
Bruh imagine saying the first pandemic in a century, a new Cold War, and the end of the worlds only (short lived) unipolar system is “not much major shit….”
According to that user only the biggest events in the history of the planet are "major". So if there is a war that's not as large as the second world War it's not a major war 😂
The Norweigan government did some smart things with its money in the last half century, they are about to become even more insanely rich and it seems like they will keep investing in sovereign wealth fund, they yield such power across the world due to this, pushing ethical policies in corporates such as Apple
Corruption by his party not by him. The second term he got turned into a puppet by those vastly greedier and more evil than him.
He was definitely without doubt, India's best Finance Minister and, in his first term at least, one of its best Prime Ministers.
It was Narasimha Rao that did bulk of backroom deals to get open industrial policy and liberalisation policies passed. Those bills were being circulated one way or another for a decade by then. Manmohan was just a figurehead Rao used as front to direct Nehruvian socialists to. Once Rao felt that enough of enonomy is liberalized, he stopped immediately while Manmohan still wanted to do a lot of economy opened up. You can contrast this with UPA terms when Manmohan didn't get any major reform done, but passed some socialist policies instead.
In progressing their country and its people I guess, erradicating poverty, creating infrastructure, making their country rich-er, giving rights, decreasing insecurity, etc... whatever makes western powers angry, lol.
Since there are 2 separate comments talking about Obama and I don't want to repeat it everywhere adding at top level
Obama somehow pushed through Obamacare / ACA / Affordable Care Act which to the best of my memory was being debated since Clinton and maybe much longer. Some literature talks about it being Nixon who talked about it first. ACA is always under threat and if and when it unravels we will talk again, but for now it has existed for a dozen years. That is a political and policy achievement.
Trump on the other hand, along with McConnell, got their Supreme Court judge and the reversal of Roe V Wade, and canceled 50 years of the ruling's existence. We are only in the beginning of that game. Agree or disagree with the goal, that's an achievement.
Trump: despite his bluster and cacophony, the country developed and mass produced the Covid vaccine in record time. I argue with the money they wasted in PPP, I argue with many other things, but he allowed the pharma companies to do their work and it achieved results. I am personally unsure if history will not find other hidden skeletons in this but as of now it appears to be a phenomenal achievement.
For their own nations? Say what you will, if you are a westerner you've probably only heard bad things about these leaders but they did great for their own people, meaning, if you are for your people you are probably an enemy of the western ""democracies"".
Merkel - Germany,
Bukele - el Salvador,
Olusegun - Nigeria,
Xi Jinping - China,
Mujica - Uruguay,
Obrador - Mexico,
Modi - India,
Qaboos - Oman,
Evo - Bolivia,
Widodo - Indonesia.
I don’t feel like there really has been anyone that i consider "the best" really. Most have been down right terrible at worst, or subpar at best.
Obama was ok, i guess. Zelensky is also ok so far at least. Most other major leaders haven’t been great imo.
Bush is a war criminal, Xi is a wannabe dictator, putin *is* a dictator, merkel did alright in most things but played *waaay* to soft on putin and sold the german energy sector to him on a silver platter. All of the most recent PMs in britain have been a travasty. Macron hasn’t messed up to bad i guess. Trudeau also has been ok, but still not great.
So far, this century has been defined by "mediocre or worse" when it comes to leaders.
Are you seriously conflating drone warfare with lying about WMDs, overturning the longstanding policy against torture, and Blackwater with drone warfare? There is a concept of just war and Bush trampled that in ways that Trump couldn’t dream of.
Not drone warfare. Extrajudicial killings. The degree of collateral damage and civilian casualties, and the extent to which mitigation efforts were simply not implemented, is a separate, though also very grim, dimension of the Obama legacy.
And yes, GWB foreign policy waa a travesty as well. One side of the aisle doesn't redeem the other.
>Trudeau also has been ok, but still not great.
He most certainly has not been. He tanked the economy, ran up record debt and has been found guilty of corruption multiple times.
Trudeau is on par for corruption scandals with most previous PMs (Remember the senate expenses thing?). With regard to debt and the economy, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about a tanking economy and record debt outside of the context of Covid. If you want to criticise his economic record, then the real question is "how did he handle the covid economy compared to other leaders. Of course the debt went up, I would be worried if the debt was going down during covid, it was not a time for austerity. Also if you measure by Debt to GDP I think its disputable whether it actually is a "record" high.
>Remember the senate expenses thing?
The thing where all the expenses were eventually found to have been proper, no wrongdoing was found and the PM himself was never even directly involved with the scandal. Not exactly the same thing.
Trudeau is literally the first and second PM in Canadian history to be found to have violated a federal law while in office.
>With regard to debt and the economy, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about a tanking economy and record debt outside of the context of Covid.
We have a housing crisis that doesn't exist directly across the border and we just went into technical recession while the US is growing at over 5%.
We are years past the last lockdown and are somehow in a technical recession despite being a resource-heavy economy at a time of high resource prices. Pretty tough to spin that as anything but a mind-boggling failure.
>"how did he handle the covid economy compared to other leaders. Of course the debt went up, I would be worried if the debt was going down during covid, it was not a time for austerity.
No one was asking for austerity, but there are degrees to this. The easy comparison is the financial crisis. Harper, with all party support in a minority parliament, ran a deficit of $56.4B at the height of the crisis. At the time, that was a new record deficit for Canada (at least in total dollars). At the height of COVID, Trudeau Jr's deficit was $327.7B, about 6 times higher. In fact, Trudeau's deficit that year was higher than the entire government's budget at the height of the financial crisis.
There is pretty large gap between austerity and a budget deficit 6 times the previous record.
>Also if you measure by Debt to GDP I think its disputable whether it actually is a "record" high.
You are correct. As a percentage of GDP one PM did previously top him, although since that PM was also named Trudeau, there may be an emerging pattern here.
The senate expense scandal was laughably minor in comparison to Trudeau's 10 foot long laundry list of bad behaviour. 8 dollar orange juices are not even in the same arena as SNC. Chinese Interference, WE to say nothing of his 6 thousand dollar hotel stays, his Aga Khan vacations or his Cash for Access shenanigans. Trudeau has been a historically bad PM. He will be remembered as possibly the worst PM in modern Canadian history.
In mild defense of Trudeau
* Handled the Trump years without too much damage
* Handled the COVID epidemic pretty well, saving a lot of lives compared to other western nations
* Canada is doing better on inflation than other western nations
* Generally harmless domestic policy
Certainly not the best pol, but competent and kind of average Liberal PM.
I mean, we did just see the economy contract for the second straight quarter while the US saw strong growth (+2.1% and +5.2% on those same quarters), and [our housing crisis has absurd price gaps between the US and Canadian side of split communities](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/om710u/house_prices_on_each_side_of_the_niagara_river_i/). That seems like pretty harmful domestic policy, especially when you consider the blatantly discriminatory laws that target parts of the country that don't vote for him, which has the country more geographically divided than it has been since his father was in office.
Too often those economic or inflation comparisons get made against countries like European ones, who have a war raging on their continent disrupting supply chains and driving up costs of fossil fuels from Russia or food from Ukraine. Canada is a country on a different continent, who disproportionately benefits from high commodity prices, yet is somehow still middle of the pack as compared to European peers.
When comparing to the US (the better comp on the same continent), Canada's economic performance has been really bad.
Macron has messed up and his popularity is pretty low
Obama and zelensky: no way. Zelensky was elected to make peace.
Obama didn't rein in wall street after 2008. ( Only later did people realize how much 2all street influenced his cabinet choices)
Agree with the rest.
Lula seems to have done the best for most people in his country. And defeated a Trump wanna be.
Chinese system..for the sheer number of people moved out of poverty!
>Zelensky was elected to make peace
Which would explain why his approval rating among Ukrainians, while fighting a multiyear war with no end in sight, is higher than, to my knowledge, any other Western Leader (82% approval I think)?
If the people elected him to make peace, why do they approve of him after years of war? I understand that they elected him before the war started, but clearly Ukrainian sovereignty is more important to them than peace, and that is Zelensky's legacy (assuming he doesn't go on to lose the war)--maintaining Ukrainian sovereignty and hopefully not cedeing much, if any, land to Russia in the process.
>Only later did people realize how much 2all street influenced his cabinet choices
It never ceases to amaze me how deftly the Obama PR team managed to sweep the unsavory aspects of his administration under the rug. Most negative commentary focuses on the number of drone strikes, but the degree of regulatory capture and revolving door appointments in 2008 are truly remarkable. The Citigroup memo released by Wikileaks in 2016 (just prior to the 2008 election and 3 days after GWB signed into effect the lavish TARP bailout) ultimately corresponded almost exactly to Obama's cabinet. The roster read like a depth chart for Wall Street's intramural softball league. The deals cut behind closed doors are still continuing to render real-world ramifications in the present era, as the culmination of fifteen years of quantitative easing and opaque financial system subsidization produce the liquidity crises and asset value dislocations we are seeing now. Not to mention the wholesale reimagination of the Affordable Care Act by private insurance interests, and the executive decision to abandon any attempt at cost reduction in favor of the mandate (which was itself a broken campaign promise).
Exactly...would not have known except for WikiLeaks etc. Same with not including public option etc ...
GWB was far worse...but the people realized his mistakes
Apart from stricter gun legislation, not much. Low COVID deaths is the absence of legacy, Jacinda Ardern will probably go down as a PM that gave New Zealand stability in a turbulent period.
In all honesty though, it's hard for New Zealand politicians to make legacies of their own. Since Michael Savage established the welfare state, NZ has upheld it. NZ is also simply too small and isolated to affect the outside world, yet also extremely dependant on world trade and trends.
She also made first year of university free which for me as a first-year uni student going through her second year of government I was quite appreciative of especially since both my parents went to university for free when they went
It’s a relatively isolated island; Taiwan had similar transmission rates in the first year. The other items were not particularly important (globally speaking) nor were the response remarkable, other than being workmanlike.
Not saying she wasn’t effective, but I’m not sure she was particularly remarkable either.
Tony Blair.
Huge record of reforms. Minimum wage, equal gay rights. Peace in Northern Ireland. Sure start centres. Regional development. Devolution. Continuous economic growth throughout a premiership which was the longest ever for someone from his own party, and marked by the threepeat of sucessive largest majorities of any PM ever.
Yes i hated him also. I just wanted to set up a game of come at me without mentioning Iraq.
Here in the US, Obama did a great job handling the economic crisis and Obama care has resulted in an additional 20 million people getting insurance. However, his foreign policy wasn't nearly as successful - and split government made passing legislation almost impossible during much of his term in office.
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010 to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, allows the government to take them into receivership if they pose a threat to the economy, and limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit. Dodd-Frank also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to crack down on abusive lending and financial services.
However, both Dodd-Frank and the CPA were to some degree defanged by the Trump administration.
No case was made for her.
I live in germany where we are currently suffering through the seeds she sowed. EVERY major decision that was made through HER personally against resistance has been an utter disaster for the country.
She decided to get rid of nuclear energy in a haste after fukushima resulting in a disastrously executed shift in energy policy, with higher prices AND worse security. That was HER decision.
She opened the floodgates to uncontrolled immigration in 2015 against resistance. She even invited people to come, resulting in massive immigration into our welfare system without a plan or the capabilities to properly integrate people into our society. A lasting increase in crime has been only one of the outcomes.
She drove us into energy dependency on russia against all the people warning against it.
Every one of her legacy defining decisions has been a disaster. She had her hands on the wheel during the absolute golden years and somehow managed to come out of them with a decayed infrastructure. She has been an utter disaster for the country.
Bro really said that? The woman who turned germany dependent on russia for energy? The woman who played softball with putin and let him get away with WAAAAY to much fuckery?
Sure but it also made Germany an export powerhouse, even after weaning off of Russian energy over time Germany will still have that going. Before pandemic germany was on track to surpass Japanese economy and significant per capita boosts.
Merkel took over in 2005 and left in 2021. She oversaw growth of the economy until the 2008 financial crisis and has overseen only stagnation since. The german GDP was at 3.7 trillion dollars in 2008. It was only in 2014 that the economy had recovered and grown, only to fall again in 2015, and then have recovered again in 2018. She oversaw stagnation, not growth. The same is true for gdp per capita. It follows mostly the same trend, growth until 2008, stagnation with minimal growth until 2015, when it slumps, and only picking up significant speed in 2021.
The only reason germany was anywhere close to surpassing japan was because japan has essentially not grown at all since 2000 (around 4.9 trillion dollars). It had a spike in 2012, and then promptly declined again and began restagnating. And germany still isn’t close to that. It only in 2021 broke the 4 trillion barrier.
She actually did a wonderful job bridging relations between western and eastern Europe. She had to walk a super fine line, keeping Germany's economy growing, facilitating the continuing reunification effort in Germany, keeping Putin in check, and also keeping Europes arms open for a potentially conciliatory Russia. She needed cheap gas and also couldn't play too heavily against Russia for the domestic crowd, many of whom were former DDR residents and distrustful of the west. I would argue that Putin considered her very highly and assumed her exit, along with Brexit, would weaken European unity in the face of his invasion of Ukraine.
Regardless of current perceptions of Merkel, I have no doubt she'll be regarded in the future as one of Europes' most distinguished statespeople.
She single handedly destroyed Europe and put Europe firmly on the path of destruction !
Her legacy is : enabling unlimited migration into Europe, changing the fundamental character of Europe and making Germany heavily dependent on Russian energy.
Prospect Magazine claimed KK Shailaja (Kerala - population about that of Canada) & Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand) claimed to be top world leaders through COVID worst times - "The world's top 50 thinkers 2020,' https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/40533/the-worlds-top-50-thinkers-2020-the-winner.
Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman from 1970 to 2020 (is it cheating if half his reign was in the last century?) Anyway, Sultan Qaboos abolished slavery his first year in power, established the national currency, laid out decrees to expand Oman's 10 km long road network in 1970 to over 60,000 km by the end of his rule (half of which is paved) and construct desalinisation plants, universities and more. Qaboos also put Oman in an excellent diplomatic position as a neutral state over the years for mediating other Arab or Islamic conflicts, most notably between Saudi Arabia and Iran, while economically, Oman's GDP total rose over tenfold due to exploitation of oil deposits. During the Arab Spring in 2011, protester demands were mostly met by Sultan Qaboos, although not without bloodshed. Oman remains a rentier state with an underdiversified economy and no separation of powers, but considering the bad hand geography has dealt it, Sultan Qaboos did excellently. Especially for a Middle Eastern man whose homosexuality was basically an open secret.
I think Oman is a really interesting country diplomatically as well. Under Sultan Qaboos they've managed to become friendly with everyone and basically position themselves as a regional mediator
In addition he also quelled a conflict that could have easily turned Oman into Yemen, mainly by investing in more regional development. And unlike the other Gulf states, the country actually treats migrant workers with a lot of respect. He was not without his flaws, but if you compare Oman to Yemen, Saudi, and the UAE it's really clear who made the best plans
Made the best plans? Oman has entirely failed with its Omanization scheme, failed to diverfiy their economy and has always treated migrants terribly. Yes he managed to turn Oman into a functioning country, opened it up to the world and made it into an effective diplomatic country for stability but it has massive problems to deal with domestically.
I hear you. I suppose I'm really grading on a major curve when Saudi and Yemen are the comparisons and his father's policies were the alternative.
I'm just curious, how did you know about the homosexuality thing? *not denying it* but its not as open as you make it seem. Have you lived here? + S.Q was a great leader, probably not the best economy wise, but his political insight and vision was indeed outstanding
I also lived there for 15 years with family still there, it is common knowledge amongst not only the local population but also throughout the other Gulf states
Upvoted for "most interesting nomination," and given the fact that no one seems worthy of of even "3rd best " so far this century. That said: >half of which is paved ...after *50 years* of rule doesn't exactly scream worth of "best head of state in the world."
It sounds like it, but paving roads in the middle of the desert where there's no traffic is pointlessly wasteful and actually the worse decision to make. Oman was only connected by camel caravans in 1970; the country used to be called Muscat and Oman (the connected part and the not connected part), Qaboos chose to rename the country to just Oman to reflect how Oman became united under his rule.
Good point. Am thinking Australian outback...but smaller and more arid.
Right. I'm not sure of the stats but wouldn't surprise me if half Australia's roads were unpaved
Most of live near the coast in Australia, so most that actually see use are paved. Those in the outback are a mix.
He was also gay which gives him extra points considering the region he’s from
Paul Kagame - Not great with election fairness, but he took an impoverished country split by civil war, and now rules over a country with a reasonable Constitution supported by most Rwandans, and he achieved many development goals set by 2020.
Kagame definitely depends on how you classify good, since a lot of people here are also including moral calculations I think if you take a narrow view, Kagame is probably the definitive answer to the question OP posed. He turned a country that had just experienced one of the largest genocides in history into Africa's biggest success story. Racial tensions are nonexistence (or well, locked away really well), the military is extremely professional and effective and corruption is very low for a country of Rwanda's stature. Kagame is competent, not corrupt, driven and he's improved the life of the average Rwandan massively Of course this good governance comes on the back of Rwandan nationalism, which has a dark side. Kagame regularly engages in extrajudicial killings for example, and most notably, he had a pretty large role in the mess in the DRC. At one point Rwanda was extracting and selling resources from the DRC to fund that good governance *in Rwanda*. That's pretty morally questionable I'd say lol Overall, he's a pretty classic "good national leader" who's not great for everyone else
Yes, I think that this a balanced approach to some of his worst aspects. You made me realize that while many people yearn for a brilliant statesman to appear in their country and solve some of its problems, you really really don't want an era defining statesman to appear in a neighboring country.
Africa’s biggest success story? Botswana might want a word.
Kagame's role in starting the Second Congo War instantly disqualifies him for me.
I don't think it's really fair to blame him for the Congo Wars themselves. The First Congo War especially I think Rwanda was 100% justified in invading. The Second Congo War is a lot murkier because it seems like basically everyone was operating on the assumption that the war was going to start anyways, so it was kind of a self fulfilling prophecy What might be disqualifying is how he acted in the 2nd Congo War itself
Kagame was certainly a gifted military leader and he's proved exceptionally deft at gaining rents from the West. I believe you that his record on development is good, but I'd want to fast forward in time to see how well the system he's created would stand after his death. I also feel that he ought to lose points for not liberalizing in the slightest during his tenure, and I feel that assassinating dissidents abroad (as he's done in South Africa and the Netherlands) is risky and counterproductive for him.
Also a good candidate for one of the worst if you look at his impact on the Congo rather than on Rwanda. Also not great if you're a journalist
Glad someone pointed this out. The dude caused incalculable human suffering in the DRC.
It remains to be seen whether Rwanda can grow its economy under his system. There are early signs of progress but it remains extremely poor. He’s gotten them from $250 gdp per capita to $800 which is a big bump but miles from having a reasonable standard of living.
Unironically Kim Jong Un has done a very competent job of making sure North Korea will never get the Saddam treatment
Had America led by France not overthrown Muammar Gaddafi North Korea would have long given up their nuclear weapons. North Korea saw what they did in Libya and aggressively advanced its nuclear program and now Japan and South Korea are at risk of nuclear annihilation
The West toppling Gaddafi is arguably one of the biggest geopolitical blunders of the century so far.
Do you think the invasion of iraq and overthrow of saddam hussein is also one of those?
In terms of long term geopolitical ramifications, toppling Gaddafi was a bigger blunder. But yes, I think it would be hard to argue the Invasion of Iraq wasn't a blunder.
> toppling Gaddafi was a bigger blunder. Wouldn't have expected this assessment. Can you explain more?
Gaddafi was cooperative with the West, openly supported the War on Terror and was one of the main stabilising elements in North Africa. He voluntarily gave up his nuclear program and other weapons and the West immediately toppled him. That destabilised North Africa leading to the rise of several terrorist groups in the region. Lead to a massive increase in illegal immigration from North Africa into Europe which they are still dealing with. Most importantly it also destroyed any belief there might have been that the West could be trusted if you chose to cooperate with them, which lead to both North Korea and Iran ramping up their own nuclear programs.
In addition to what was said below, using NATO as an offensive force for the first time was one of the ways Russia's fears wrt to Ukraine were stoked.
Why not? The toppling of Gadaffi is used as a case-book example in universities of what not to do, re: International Relations, UN, etc. There's a reason why it was considered an illegal action.
From a general "don't start a war unless it's absolutely needed" perspective, yes. However, Saddam had been a warmonger, and his sons had a reputation to be even more sadistic. So it may have prevented worse, but that's hard to tell. If you're looking for blunders in the Middle East, look at how the treatment of Iran turned it into a theocracy.
IMHO, the main blunder was that it was based on a lie as Chilcot report show. It hugely tarnished Western reputation outside the west. You can see it now when it comes to Ukraine. No one outside western group of supporters takes any morality or international norm based calls from the west seriously. And for a good reason. How you can blame Russia starting a war based on a lie if west started iraq2 based on a lie too?
>The West toppling Gaddafi is arguably one of the biggest geopolitical blunders of the century so far. What do you mean? There already was a civil war because Khadafi was getting old, the conflict was getting ethnic cleansing, the circumstances were not unlike the Yugoslav war. It was a containment operation.
If West would not become rebel airforce they would never win.
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the broader point, North Korea had nuclear weapons years before Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown, and long after the agreement it had made with the Clinton administration to wind down its nuclear program had been abandoned. North Korea was never going to give up its nuclear weapons, no matter what happened in Libya.
>Had America led by France not overthrown Muammar Gaddafi North Korea would have long given up their nuclear weapons. North Korea saw what they did in Libya and aggressively advanced its nuclear program and now Japan and South Korea are at risk of nuclear annihilation **With respect, I think it would be difficult to find an East Asian diplomat or historian who agrees with this.** There's no plausible scenario in which North Korea would ever have given up its nukes. Despite that, there are also remarkably few scenarios in which it's a threat to Japan or South Korea. What happened to Qaddafi unnerved dictators around the world, but the Kim regime is operating with a very long institutional memory. The event that most informs the Kims' terror of downfall isn't Qaddafi's death, but the death of Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989. For anyone new to the event, Ceausescu was overthrown in the 1989 Romanian Revolution, and he and his wife were subsequently captured, tried, and executed. (We'll be exactly 34 years removed from the latter event on December 25th this year.) Kim il-Sung (Kim Jong-un's grandfather) considered himself friends with the man, not least because Ceausescu was a great admirer of his. Romania's July Theses were patterned on what Ceausescu had seen on trips to China and North Korea in 1971. To have another state copying governmental and cultural practices based on *juche* was an enormous propaganda victory, particularly at a moment when the Kims were concerned about South Korea's growing economic and geopolitical clout. On a personal note, it also did a lot to massage Kim's ego, which was always a great way to get on his good side. **Ceausescu's death later was a shattering blow, and Kim il-Sung was absolutely haunted by his fate.** To place this in its proper historical context, Ceausescu's death capped a year in which Communist regimes died like flies, was a little over a month following the fall of the Berlin Wall, and one of NK's major benefactor states (the USSR) was clearly circling the drain. The end of the Friendship Prices program (which the USSR ran to allow states within its sphere of influence to purchase things like oil, gas, and fertilizer at absurdly cheap rates) dates to this period as well. NK was facing much-higher prices for these commodities that it really couldn't afford to pay, and in five years, this would become the proximate reason for their 1994-1998 famine. Imagine living in a neighborhood in which most of your neighbors' houses are on fire, your favorite neighbor just got whacked, the local heavyweight has a death-rattle cough, the protective wall is being chunked and sold to tourists, and your rent, heating, and gas bills just tripled. Late 1989 was a *desperately* bad time to be among the holdouts, and would have ratcheted the Kims' paranoia and terror considerably. Kim Jong-un would have been a child at the time, and may even have witnessed his grandfather and father (Kim Jong-il) discussing it. The obvious conclusion for them, and for other authoritarian leaders, was that there was no realistic path out of their situation. Their control of North Korea could continue in the same fashion it had for almost half a century, or it could end in violence, and all of them would be killed by their own people. There was no societal mechanism, as there was in states like Poland, for it to end peacefully. Kim Jong-il almost certainly had a better grasp of this reality than his father did, and I don't think he failed to discuss it with his children as they got older. (Though it was Kim Jong-nam, and not Jong-un, who was the heir apparent in this period.) **So what does this have to do with North Korea's nuclear program?** Pretty much nothing. NK's nuclear program comfortably predates 1989. Though publicly-available intelligence is thin on the ground, especially in English, we know that NK wanted nuclear weapons as early as the 1960s and was exploring ways to get them. (Fortunately, the Chinese and the Soviets both recognized that this was a very bad idea and refused to cooperate.) The program itself dates to the mid-1980s at the very latest. North Korea wanted nukes for a variety of reasons, but principal among them was the desire for an equalizer with the major powers in the region. Korea has long described itself as "a shrimp among whales" (not without reason), and it's this mentality more than anything else that informs the Kims' perspective. Romania was not a nuclear state, nor was it toppled from beyond its borders. Ceausescu's death did not establish any form of precedent, and (later) neither did Qaddafi's. Regardless of events elsewhere in the world, the Kims would have continued to pursue nuclear weapons, and while the incentive structure governing their behavior was undoubtedly *affected* by the fall of so many ideological allies, it was certainly not created by them. It wanted nukes before the USSR fell. It wanted nukes after the USSR fell. It wanted nukes when the famine hit and roughly a million North Koreans died. It wanted nukes when it was on good terms with South Korea: It wanted nukes when it was on bad terms with South Korea. It wanted nukes regardless of the talks it had with the U.S./Japan/SK/China/Russia, and -- absent a truly draconian inspection program -- probably would have found a way to get them regardless of whatever agreements it had made. **Sober analyses written *long* before Qaddafi was toppled concluded that North Korea was never, ever going to give up its nuclear program.** And if I were them? I wouldn't do it either. It makes no sense and never has. It's one of the few marks of "prestige" they have as a state. It cools the regime's paranoia over invasion; they know they're a small, despised, desperately poor country, but they're a small, despised, desperately poor country with nuclear weapons. More practically, having nukes permits them some flexibility with the country's otherwise ruinously expensive and historically ineffective military. If they need to reassign whole divisions to food production to keep bellies full, they can, because it doesn't have a meaningful impact on their defense. One nuclear-tipped ballistic missile can accomplish what thousands of malnourished soldiers never could. As to the threat NK poses to other countries, I do not contradict that this is a concern, but it's a smaller one than you might think. The #1 goal of the regime is its own survival. That interest isn't going to be served by the major players in East Asia concluding that the Kims are too dangerous to be left alone. NK wants to be just annoying and influential enough to get food aid and security concessions, but not annoying and influential enough that invasion becomes a realistic concern. (They have also long since concluded -- and I would argue correctly -- that China is more likely to do so than the U.S.) **TL:DR:** The only way to assure that other countries give you a wide berth in geopolitics is to get an equalizer. Qaddafi's fate may have reinforced that lesson, but it did not teach it. And -- to the extent that another statesman's death informs the Kim regime's actions -- it's Nicolae Ceausescu's.
Not really. Saddam was the big wakeup call. By the time Gaddafi was overthrown north Korea already had nukes.
Why would they? It's not like they mind being a pariah. Most likely they would have still pursued it and still kept it regardless of US action in Iraq or Lybia
Highly doubtful, North Korea never planned on giving up its nuclear arsenal even before Gaddafi. The Kims have known for a long time thag nuclear deterrance was the only way they could hope to stay alive. Gaddafi's overthrow only solidified that for them.
Tokayev could be a sleeper pick if he’s actually serious about liberalizing Kazakhstan. He’s made big plans for the country with the economy, environment, healthcare and most importantly its institutions and has followed through on a few of them. Doing all of this while balancing influence between Russia, China, and the West has been pretty masterful so far
Don't trust him in changing inside. So far, nothing changed. Same shit in elections, old levels of corruption made by the same old people.
José Mujica in Uruguay?
This comment's a winner too! Mujica legalized abortion and marijuana, donated most of his $12k salary to the poor. Perhaps a little diplomatically left-wing for Westerners, as Mujica did quite like Hugo Chavez and didn't want any hard stance against Iran, but he was a conciliatory man in disputes with Argentina and didn't fight with his predecessor AND successor, Tabare Vasquez. He's a critic of capitalism promoting the stockpiling of material goods that don't contribute to happiness, so as head of government, he wouldn't have brought the most possible economic benefit, but he did become a symbol of simple living and progressive policies, which may be more beneficial overall. Uruguay is a stable country in a peaceful part of the world, and Mujica was a surefire contributor.
I don't mean to be that guy but I feel like a lot of these policies like legalizing abortion or marijuana are value judgements. There's nothing that inherently makes these policies "good" or "bad" besides you agreeing with them. If we just used that, this question would just be asking "which left wing leaders acheived the most this century" (since reddit is overwhelmingly lefty) The way I took this question at least is which leaders managed to lead their countries the best separate from social policies. Things like economic progress or foreign policy, since those have more objective measures on what is a "good" outcome
You're absolutely right, economic policy is most important. That's why the legalization of marijuana in Uruguay was explicitly meant to weaken drug cartels and boost government revenue by regulating its $40M business. For Uruguay though, a strong foreign policy is not really necessary. As I said, it's in a safe part of the world and its existence isn't under threat, and it's too far and too small to meaningfully affect the lives of people on other continents. So in that sense, domestic social policy is the only real worry. Legalization of abortion keeps 20,000 Uruguayan women out of hospital every year, that's a good change in my eyes.
If you’ve got a womb then abortion is much more than a mere value judgment. Even if you never have one. Abortion bans have generally tended to undermine and distort gynaecology and ante-natal practice resulting in poorer outcomes for women.
It doesn't eve matter if you have a womb or not to recognize that this is more than a value judgement. Abortion bans hold back society. But of course if abortion is banned, we have a bigger workforce which can be paid less, so we will have economic growth /s
> I don't mean to be that guy but I feel like a lot of these policies like legalizing abortion or marijuana are value judgements. This implies that on these issues both sides are equal and it's a mere matter of opinion ("values"), whis is not true. If you look at objective measures like health, revenue and organized crime activity, legalizing marijuana and abortions is the rationally sound decision and is usually **held back** because of conservstive values. It's the prohibitive status quo that is an irrational value decision.
Is your position that those legalization moves didn’t affect geopolitics and therefore a bad answer to the OP? Even as policies that only effect the domestic citizens, legalizing both of those helps economies, public health, and prevents tension with neighbors with more progressive policies.
Don't tell an Uruguayan, he's considered a lousy president there compared to Tabaré Vázquez.
Can confirm. Uruguayans I know aren’t a fan of Pepe Mujica.
I read a couple of years ago this guy is actually a mafia dickhead and this image of him being a soft old man is fabricated. Any Uruguayans can confirm?
I live in Chile while he was in office and this was something the right wing politicians used to try and convince the poor folk not to vote for socialists. Like a pretty well known talking point.
Thomas Sankara. Not this century, but within the last 100 years. Sankara as president of Burkina Faso built schools, hospitals, infrastructure for water and roads. Free for everyone. An environmentalist, he planted millions of trees to restore land. He granted equal rights to all women and made FGM illegal. ... The French didn't like how popular he was so they had him assassinated. RIP to a real one
There is an excellent doco: Thomas Sankara - the Upright Man. It's on Youtube.
Such a great choice, what an awesome dude!
Lee Kuan Yew - Singapore's Founding Father
“This century”
Lee Kuan Yew still had an official position in the Singapore government helping with the transition from 2004 to 2011. He died in 2015
Hu Jintao was also great for China, for continuing in his work opening and modernizing the country. He was the last prime minister before Xi Jinping and I could imagine a future where the CCP would turn back to the openness of Hu Jintao
Most PRCs will disagree. They see him as a weak, spineless leader. Corruption was rife at all levels of government and he did nothing to address it.
Lula da Silva! Was he jailed for corruption? Yes. Did he have a fair trial? Not at all. Do I think he’s innocent? Not my job to prove anything. He took 40 million Brazilians out of extreme poverty. People were dying of starvation in Brazil’s most remote areas, and he brought food, water, and distributed money to families whose children were in school and up to date with their vaccines. He expanded access to higher education, built dozens of Federal Institutes of Education (something like Community Colleges, if compared to the US system). Brazil was the 6th biggest economy in the world during his tenure. His comeback after serving as President for eight years and defeating the incumbent, who spent billions trying to buy votes, proves how grateful people are for his previous government.
Reddit apparently likes autocrats.
I feel like only autocrats are capable of getting these really challenging issues handled, reminds me of Ataturk
I think one of the major issues causing this is that autocrats are in power longer so, naturally, will have a longer list of accomplishments. Even a very competent Mexican president (constitutionally limited to one 6 year term) is going to struggle immensely to accomplish as much as a middling autocrat in power for 23 years. Not to mention how in pluralistic governments both blame and credit are shared whereas in autocracies autocrats will typically find it easier to take credit and divert blame. Definitely too many autocrats in this thread though IMO.
That's the thing, if you are serious about doing something for the benefit of your country you end up being labeled an autocrat by the western powers since they don't really like being given the finger with their pigeonholing lawfare game... el Salvador for example.
Which is very weird. Especially as autocratic systems have proven again and again to be very unstable and more importantly *militarily weak*. Look at how the autocratic societies of Russia, China and North Korea botched all of their opportunities and chances. Meanwhile democracies due to internal competition and never reaching a consensus remain strong. This isn't because Putin, Xi or Kim are stupid individuals. It's because *autocracies are inherently inferior to democracies from a systematic point of view*. If you were an immoral machiavellian character that didn't care about anything except the superiority of your own nation/civilization you would ensure your system stays democratic while ensuring all other systems stay autocratic so that you always have an upper hand. Hell why do you think NATO and the west is playing a balancing act against Putin. We don't *want* him to lose power. Russia is way more controllable and weak as an autocracy compared to a potential juggernaut a democratic Russia would be. And I can't even imagine how much of a powerhouse a democratic China would be. There's no way a democratic China wouldn't be the #1 power in the world right now. For all intents and purposes the west is extremely lucky that Russia and China are autocratic, and therefor weak. The west wouldn't stand a chance against a proper democratic Russia + China.
So? Good autocrats are good. If your country has one of the highest standard of living, life expectancy, extremely low poverty rate, low crime, low corruption, then what's the problem?
There is very, very, very few of them. There is maybe one semi-autocratic country (Singapore, which is still democracy) in maybe top 30 countries in whole world in all above mentioned characteristics. Autocrats are usually in power for a long time, and that's why people usually incorrectly attribute natural long term development that coincidentally happened under given autocrat to be thanks to that autocrat.
Hear me out: Gordon Brown. Not the most inspiring choice, but he oversaw the massive jump in living standards under Blair, then managed to mitigate the worst of the financial crisis when he was PM.
I thought I might see him mentioned!
From an American perspective, someone on the outside looking in. I thought he handled All of that turmoil exceptionally well.
You mean the guy that wouldn't shut up about ending boom and bust while letting the City regulate itself into CDS etc resulting in 2008? You mean the genius who did PPP to help bankrupt the NHS* (*but after my mates rent us the hospitals for 30 years first)? The guy who told the Treasury not to give him recommendations after he got caught screwing up pensions? You mean that Gordon Brown? He was great!
That’s not what the question asked though. The title is ‘who were the best heads of government in this century so far’. Beyond questions about the legitimacy of government, consent to be ruled and all of that, there are not many I can think of who were a net gain to the countries they were in charge of. If you remember the Thatcher years, and Britain in the early 90s, then I think the huge strides made at the start of this century are evident - even if it would have been good to see them go a lot further.
Highly dislike the guy after be declared Iceland a terrorist state
Gordon Brown is to Iceland what Churchill is to India.
Do you live in Iceland ? I want to see the Aurora borealis. Any suggestions where I should go in iceland ?
I recommend going to the western peninsula Snæfellsnes. Its not as crowded and far less light pollution.
Annoys me so much that people genuinely looked at the pig fucker and thought that he was more suitable for office than Gordan Brown. It just shows everything wrong with how the media represent elections where appearance is more important than competence and seriousness. I think Cameron would be the worst modern leader if his arrogance hadn't led us on a path with at least two significantly worse leaders.
That's 'Lord Cameron' to you, boy. LOL.
Lula made tremendous strides in fighting extreme poverty in Brazil and safeguarding the Amazon and its indigenous people during his initial two terms in office, as well as defeating a dangerous would-be strongman in the 2022 election. Might be worth consideration.
[удалено]
Blair's legacy in the UK has been ruined by the Iraq war really so I dont think he'd be very welcome back!
And went to jail because of corruption and want to distance himself from the West while getting closer and more dependent on China. This next one is my personal opinion but while Brazil grew it's economy a lot in his previous government I think it also condemned Brazil to become a middle income trapped country and it will never become a global power with such a resource dependent and monopolized economy
If you look even a little bit into the details surrounding the "corruption" that landed him in jail you will quickly find that the whole thing was bogus.
What? I do think he was probably unfairly jailed, but I don't think that somehow makes all the corruption charges bogus
The corrupt clown who is friendly with Russia but gets a pass by redditos because he is a leftist? Nah...
Lula’s position on Russia seems to be changing, [today](https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/mundo/putin-sera-convidado-para-cupula-do-g20-no-brasil-mas-sabe-o-que-pode-acontecer-se-vier-diz-lula,78b5b43ff396a0a37b110608db962d09342c0sl4.html) he said Putin is invited to come in G20 in Brazil where he will be arrested. If he continues it in this direction and even manages to Mercosul to trade with EU, he might actually restore his legacy even with centrists who are now very critical of him and actually be genuinely worthy of this nomination.
He also took kickbacks and was found guilty of corruption.
The corruption trial was a joke - not a Brazilian just interested - they could never even prove he owned the house. To which he had never visited and seemed to have no idea. In fact if his kickback was being given a house, one wonder how he would’ve claimed it given he had no ownership record. The whole thing was clearly a concoction of his rivals, aided by a US state department hostile to his continued strengthening of Petrobras the state oil company, which was subsiding his social reforms, at the cost of the Brazilian elite who were used to owning essential component of the nation.
Can we consider Brazil for any positive notion here? The internet is still flooded with men, women, and children getting their heads (slowly) sawed off by cartels. New videos seem to come out every day. Whatever is happening in Brazil is not good. In the rest of the world, food gets delivered by motorbike uber drivers, in Brazil, the uber drivers are the hitmen. In fact, I've seen such traumatic footage coming out of that country, that I should send your countries government a medical bill for the trauma. And you can say that is the cartels doing, or that it happens in this area or that, but ultimately, it is the government responsible for putting an end to it. But looking at how badly the 2016 Olympics was run, It doesn't surprise me that murder runs rampent.
Juan Manuel Santos ended Colombia’s 50-year civil war… he was pretty mediocre otherwise, but that’s no small feat, and took a lot of courage.
Lee Kuan Yew is the best last century had to offer.
Not this century
My granddad left the country because his lefty college buddies got thrown in prison without charge, so don't forget that Singapore wasn't all unicorns and rainbows.
There's always trade-offs. The universe isn't all sunshine and rainbows. As a Singaporean who is always striving for better ultimately you can't not admit that Singapore is on a different stratosphere entirely to the rest of Southeast Asia. For some reason when it comes to outside perspectives on our country it always seems like the ones who want to see the good don't want to see the bad, and the ones who see the bad don't want to see the good. The truth is neither Disneyland with the Death Penalty nor completely blissful paradise, but to be a developed somewhat cosmopolitan city-state and major financial centre from a country with the GDP per capita of Nigeria in 1965 is not something that should be waved away lightly. FWIW, a lot of young people are burdened by the problems of capitalism, and many wish to go somewhere where the pace of life is less grueling. It's the choice I made myself, but that's the world we live in no? The working class are not free from rising inequality and the weight of capitalism anywhere in the world. Where did your granddad net out if you don't mind me asking?
>Singapore is on a different stratosphere entirely to the rest of Southeast Asia. Well yeah, it's only worth travelling to as the stop-over. Not the party destination the rest of SEA is. Progress is not always good when you're looking for a good time, but I guess it's good for you lot that have to live there. Thailand's still my favourite.
whatever bad things happened the results speak for themselves
That's because Singapore is a authoritarian country, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's got one of the highest standard of living in the world, top 5 life expectancy in the world, great social programs, incredibly low crime, a thriving economy, and is involved in no wars. Like, it's quite amazing compared to almost every other country in the world.
A benign dictator is still a dictator.
Some people don't see that as a bad thing. Of course the problem is that people like LKY or Tito are one in billions and having anyone else lesser wield the power they had spelled disasaters.
>having anyone else lesser wield the power they had spelled disasaters Singapore's still chugging along reasonably well, and it seems plausible the country will transition to multi-party democracy if LKY's successors keep underperforming expectations. The transition might even be relatively smooth, given the considerable institutional infrastructure Singapore already has in place to enable it.
LKY successors did not hold the power LKY had. Not even close. And I'm even talking about the ability to personally sway a nation, not just judicial power. I give a lot of LKY though for knowing that Singapore could not continue on with the iron fist he held and gradually letting go off power. Honestly I think there's a lot of merit to having a benevolent dictator do nation building and gradually transitioning to a democracy, but the problem is a) finding an actually benevolent dictator and b) finding one that was able to do nation-building at the scale of LKY.
Remains to be seen if Singapore can make a transition into a democracy. LKY succeeded in moving Singapore away from a one person cult of personality dictatorship, but it's still technocratic one-party rule.
For real, visible results in Latin America? Gotta go with Bukele.
It’s crazy how much crime decreases when you just arrest every male under the age of 30 😂
Well every male with tattoos
I don't think 90% of the local population agrees with your accusation
Nah, Bukele rides a wave of populist sentiment because he has 'dealt' (hoovered up street level gangs while legitimising their international, more serious operations) with gangs. Pity if you aren't in a gang but in the wrong place - you'll be headed to jail. Pity if you speak out against Bukele - believe it or not, straight to jail. Already in jail? Somehow, you'll be moved to what is functionally a prison camp, regardless of what you have done.
I'm legitimately curious, can you expand on what you mean by Bukele legitimising the international crime operations of El Salvador's gangs? Thanks.
So Bukele *has* cleaned up the streets of El Salvador, but as Salvadoran newspaper El Faro (now hounded out of the country, into exile in neighbouring Costa Rica) - and specialist international outlets - have noted, what has really happened is that Bukele has cut a deal with gang leaders to get amazing press by ignoring what the gangs are actually doing. MS-13 (and to a lesser extent, rivals Barrio 18) is seen by the west as a street gang, but it's really an extremely large Transnational Organised Criminal organisation. It operates drug smuggling in Europe, people trafficking in Mexico, and controls most of Salvadorean life. By overlooking what the gangs are doing at the top level - particularly the much more lucrative cartel behaviours overseas - the government has reached an agreement to jail all the knuckle draggers in return for good publicity (which as you can see on Reddit, works well). Bukele wants to be president for life, and in his late 30s, that is an extremely long time to be in control. With the ability to 'govern' without worrying about gang violence, he has used this time to crack down on the press and anyone who criticises him. There are reports (emphasis on reports, though the reporters are relatively reliable sources) of police offers adding tattoos to arrestees to make them appear as if they are gang members, which functionally carries an automatic life sentence these days. The expulsion of El Faro is extremely worrying. This is also partly behind the decision to accept Bitcoin as a 'real' currency - as allowing untraceable money to move freely massively helps these groups. This is a massive, massive boost for MS-13, as it helps them to avoid sanctions entirely, and get European drug money back to El Salvador (and also funds into the US, where it runs most of its recruiting operations). A lot of El Salvador needs to be understood in terms of the horrendous civil war that raged until 1992. The country is still recovering, and the effect of US intervention has made it very difficult for anyone to get by - hence the emergence of gangs. It is just a shame that the largest gang is now the government, led by Bukele himself. As Mexico found out, once regions of a country effectively become narco-states, it is significantly harder to resolve the problems which have taken root. This is what is now happening in El Salvador. MS-13 could be sorted out *relatively* easily. The US government could crack down on the recruiting of young migrants and prison populations, and Europe is trying to block the drug trafficking. Bukele's popularity (and the false believe he has 'solved' the gang problem) does stand in the way of real efforts to resolve serious crime in what is (was?) probably Latin America's most violent country.
Eliminating street violence was worth it. 10x lower murders.
Worth it? Not in the long term. Theoretically, there was nothing stopping Bukele from arresting all the criminals, the deal did not need to be made - and yet it was.
Theoretically =/= Practically. The El Salvadoran Government's sole concern is the well-being of its citizens. When stuck between a rock and a hard place of course they would and should prioritize their own people over foreigners. It's Europe and the US' problem if they don't crack down on MS-13 abroad. It's easy for those in relatively safer states to sit on our high horse and judge those less fortunate and more desperate on what they do in that desperation. Edit: Leaving this here, but this comment was made before I read the rest of the OP's comments.
I have first-hand experience of all of this - I am not just talking out of my arse on what is going on. These gangs have become significantly more powerful as a result of Bukele pretending (and that's what this is - a charade) to have solved the crisis. I do not, for one second believe that a problem that has plagued El Salvador for 20 years was resolved in mere months by someone who was more or less a political novice. It doesn't happen without the gangs agreeing - MS-13 and Barrio 18 both have the ability to put up a fight if they don't want to be arrested, they aren't neighborhood gangs (see my comment and follow-up [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/18aqtuv/who_were_the_best_heads_of_goverment_in_this/kc0zzm8/?context=3) for some sources on this). The fact they have just quietly surrendered in the literal tens of thousands should be pause for thought (this also says nothing about the reports of political enemies being accused of being gang members to be locked away without trial). The problem that Europe and the US have is that MS-13 operates in El Salvador at the top level, but uses networks in the US and elsewhere to recruit (exploiting issues with the US prison system to get vulnerable minors into the group). It being 'their problem' isn't very accurate - especially as it is primarily Salvadorans who are being trafficked north by MS-13. The gangs aren't dead, they're now just ignored, much the same way cartels in Mexico operate in many regions of the country. So what was the payoff? You are totally correct that a government should be concerned with its own people first, but the situation that has been created is extremely similar to Mexico in the late 1990s-early 2000s. Handing over real power to these groups, rather than allowing them to fight for scraps has only created massive criminal organisations that are even more deeply rooted at a much higher (and more insidious level) of Salvadoran society, and cannot now be rounded up and shipped off to prison because they have penetrated the establishment itself. The (seeming) reduction in crime is so massive that it is easy to sit abroad and comment on it - and it is true that in the immediate term, the average person on the streets of San Salvador is much less likely to be violently robbed than at any point in the last few years. The problem is that it has condemned the country as a whole - not just to an impending Bukele dictatorship, but also to being entrenched even more deeply under the boot of the *pandillas*. Not being shot at in the street is undoubtedly an improvement, but it doesn't alone fix the myriad problems that make El Salvador a great place for gangs in the first place - or the problems that put innocent lives in danger. We look at the headline figures and assume they tell the story - but the truth is both significantly more complex and concerning once we get down to what is really happening. The drug trade is picking up on Belize, Guatemala and El Salvador as waypoints to smuggle drugs via land, and the drug war is decimating a country that is much less able to deal with what has arrived than Mexico - but with government blessing, it is now much more able to hide it from prying eyes. As an aside, this is actually pretty similar to what happened in Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge - a strongman came in to bring security and save the country - now it's entirely run by transnational gangs who are displacing villages and burning businesses, and as they mostly part of the formalised power structure of the country, there is no recourse at all for those affected.
Yeah I made that comment before I read further down to the rest of your messages. You made good points there and above here.
I mean the crime reductions are absolutely undeniable and the reason the vast majority of Salvadorians are fans of Bukele. What Western NGOs regarding unfair detention doesn't matter a ton to the average person who finally feels safe to walk the streets without being shot
Yes, but reducing crime by legalising more serious (and societally damaging) crime is not really a result, it's just papering over the cracks. This is what Mexico did for a long time - and look at northern Mexico now.
Which "more serious crime" did they legalize exactly?
Ok, 'legitimise' is a better word. My bad. The fact remains though, allowing gangs to become significantly more powerful - which *intentionally ignoring international trafficking* undoubtedly is - will only come back to bite the people of El Salvador in a decade or so, even if the short term effect is fewer criminal on the street. We have seen this playbook across several countries with similar problems (most notably Colombia and Mexico), and the result has not been positive. The issues surrounding law enforcement in Latin America are not easily solved by current governments, and kicking the can down the road in favour of an easy PR win (and look at the size of that win) is simply creating a bigger, more powerful and more politically entrenched group of gangs that will rear their ugly heads later.
>The fact remains though, allowing gangs to become significantly more powerful. Can you be more specific about what it means to allow gangs to become more powerful? Who and what are the people he's empowering, specifically?
Specifically? Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and their rivals, Barrio 18, who together are the two main *pandillas* (gangs) in the country. There has been some outstanding investigative reporting, mostly from people like Carlos Martínez and the team at El Faro (although Index On Censorship covered this story a few years ago too) that provides the best background to a complicated situation, but here is a tl;dr: After the Salvadoran civil war, gangs took advantage of the power vacuum in the country, which suffered from weak political control by the government in San Salvador. Fast forward to 2019, and Bukele (who had been expelled from the ruling party), the son of a wealthy family, took power promising to deal with the gang problem in the country, which was at this point, a significant issue. It took almost no time at all for Bukele to sort out a problem that had blighted El Salvador for 2 decades - which in itself is suspicious. By 2020, he had secretly struck a deal that would see gangs prohibit their members from engaging in excessive street-level crime, as well as giving up legions of footsoldiers to authorities, which has made for the photo opportunities that we see coming out of the country today. In return for this, Bukele pretends to have solved the crisis. This has allowed the gangs (and especially MS-13) to diversify their international operations, primarily in the US and Spain (and by extension, the EU). The gang has gone from a street group (albeit a powerful one) to an international cartel. There are some suggestions that they operate alongside the Kinahan Cartel, the biggest cartel you have never heard of, and also alongside some of the Mexican cartels, as El Salvador is one of the major starting points for mass migration, presenting a large number of vulnerable people willing to allow themselves to be trafficked north. I've mentioned Bitcoin in this before - but it is also no coincidence that El Salvador has now officialised an untraceable form of finance at much the same time - gangs can now freely move ill-gotten wealth about with no paper trail - and even spend it normally, thanks to the new measures. This has also allowed Bukele to accuse anyone he doesn't like of being a gang member, and with such strong rules in place, they can easily be arrested and imprisoned without trial. My job requires me to research and write extensively about organised crime in Latin America. This is how Colombia and Mexico got into their predicaments - easy wins that gave the impression of sorting a problem, while actively making things worse. The murder rate reduction between gangs is down for now - but it won't be down forever, and once they come back, there won't be a government force capable of stopping them.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this is very reminiscent of how the Guadalajara Cartel in Mexico were left to their own devices by the government for far too long because gang violence and murders went down significantly and were seen as ‘manageable’ when they were first established. Many central figures ignored the fact that this was only a by-product of the cartel creating a monopoly on gang violence and exploiting institutional corruption. Looking at the state of modern Cartels in Mexico, I can imagine they will be regretting the decision to not intervene in the early 80s as it is now almost certainly impossible. Can I ask you which sources you read for your research as it’s a topic I’m very interested in and would love to learn more about.
Of course, I'd be happy to share some sources. In terms of publicly available sources (my work leads me to talk with people like the DEA, who you probably could email, if you were really interested, but obviously aren't a source I can just link), I really, really recommend El Faro. [Their website is very well translated into English](https://elfaro.net/en?rf=home) and contains the kind of on-the-ground primary reporting that is worth a thousand times one Reddit comment. It should also give you a look into how Bukele is consolidating his power, and how he is likely to go the route of Daniel Ortega in neighbouring Nicaragua. Their [Spanish language site contains more reporting](https://elfaro.net/es?rf=inicio), but will obviously need translating. This [U.S. government report](https://www.justice.gov/media/1120601/dl?inline) is quite an interesting look into how the gang operates in the US (and the wide scope of crimes they are involved in - these are not street thugs, despite popular belief). It's worth noting it was published during the Trump era, so some of the language is a little heavy-handed, but the stats themselves are accurate and provide a chance to understand the unique nature of the gang as a transnational organisation. Vis-a-vis the cryptocurrency discussion, [Georgetown have a well-researched report](https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2023/03/20/the-growing-use-of-cryptocurrencies-by-transnational-organized-crime-groups-in-latin-america/) that explains really clearly what is happening with drug trafficking and Bitcoin, with a focus on El Salvador and Bukele. You are right about the broad comparisons between MS-13 and Mexican cartels. Obviously El Salvador is much smaller, but with cartels being far more decentralised, it makes it harder to deal with.
Surprisingly tricky question. There are easy answers for the 20th century. Even if we limit it to the last 24 years. However you want to define "best," you have several good choices to choose from. Partly, that's because it's easier to see legacy with some extra decades. I don't think that's the greater part. I think it really has been a poor century for leaders/leadership. Trump was certainly memorable. A lot of cultural influence, but hard to call that "best." Not much policy legacy. Obama same really. Cultural impact but not much policy or legacy. Bush started Iraq/Afghanistan...That's historically significant impact, but it didn't go very well. Xi may not totally derail China... but its hard to see a greatness legacy in his future. Putin... He's definitely a "Russian leader for the books," and he's in good company there. Best? It will take a lot of turning things around and I doubt he has time for that. I guess he has Crimea and South Ossetia. Europe has basically no leadership. Merkel is the most prominent so far. What's her legacy? "*Kept a steady ship*?" maybe. A lot of her worldview rolled into sand at the of her tenure... so it's hard to call that "best" either. Zelensky's in the running. It depends on how the war ends and what comes after though. IDK. hard century for leadership. poor leaders.
Yeah as far as western leaders go there isn’t much in the past 24 years that really impressed. Part of the issue is that not much major shit happend. I agree with you. Zelensky has the potential to become a Churchill like figure if Ukraine wins the war.
>not much major shit happend in the last 24 years Lol
You can laugh all you want. The wars in the last century were far vaster, the diseases deadlier , the stock market crashes were bigger and the human accomplishments were more impactful . The one and only seriously significant development that happened this century so far is the cellphone . Ithe computer and the internet were invented at the end of the last century. So yeah I stand by what I said, not much major shit has happened in the last 24 years.
Bruh imagine saying the first pandemic in a century, a new Cold War, and the end of the worlds only (short lived) unipolar system is “not much major shit….”
According to that user only the biggest events in the history of the planet are "major". So if there is a war that's not as large as the second world War it's not a major war 😂
Zelensky is unfortunately looking worse and worse as the war becomes a stalemate. Recent articles even as his own aides calling him delusional.
The Norweigan government did some smart things with its money in the last half century, they are about to become even more insanely rich and it seems like they will keep investing in sovereign wealth fund, they yield such power across the world due to this, pushing ethical policies in corporates such as Apple
Norwegian former PM Jens Stoltenberg is leader of NATO now
Dr Manmohan Singh, opened the Indian market and stabilised the economy during recession.
But his second term was tainted by corruption. There’s a reason his party lost big to the BJP.
Corruption by his party not by him. The second term he got turned into a puppet by those vastly greedier and more evil than him. He was definitely without doubt, India's best Finance Minister and, in his first term at least, one of its best Prime Ministers.
It was Narasimha Rao that did bulk of backroom deals to get open industrial policy and liberalisation policies passed. Those bills were being circulated one way or another for a decade by then. Manmohan was just a figurehead Rao used as front to direct Nehruvian socialists to. Once Rao felt that enough of enonomy is liberalized, he stopped immediately while Manmohan still wanted to do a lot of economy opened up. You can contrast this with UPA terms when Manmohan didn't get any major reform done, but passed some socialist policies instead.
Who have been the best heads of government so far this century? Best in what respect?
In progressing their country and its people I guess, erradicating poverty, creating infrastructure, making their country rich-er, giving rights, decreasing insecurity, etc... whatever makes western powers angry, lol.
Since there are 2 separate comments talking about Obama and I don't want to repeat it everywhere adding at top level Obama somehow pushed through Obamacare / ACA / Affordable Care Act which to the best of my memory was being debated since Clinton and maybe much longer. Some literature talks about it being Nixon who talked about it first. ACA is always under threat and if and when it unravels we will talk again, but for now it has existed for a dozen years. That is a political and policy achievement. Trump on the other hand, along with McConnell, got their Supreme Court judge and the reversal of Roe V Wade, and canceled 50 years of the ruling's existence. We are only in the beginning of that game. Agree or disagree with the goal, that's an achievement. Trump: despite his bluster and cacophony, the country developed and mass produced the Covid vaccine in record time. I argue with the money they wasted in PPP, I argue with many other things, but he allowed the pharma companies to do their work and it achieved results. I am personally unsure if history will not find other hidden skeletons in this but as of now it appears to be a phenomenal achievement.
.
Silvio Berlusconi for entertainment value. Bunga Bunga, the melted face, the fact he had more lives than a cat... all of it.
For their own nations? Say what you will, if you are a westerner you've probably only heard bad things about these leaders but they did great for their own people, meaning, if you are for your people you are probably an enemy of the western ""democracies"". Merkel - Germany, Bukele - el Salvador, Olusegun - Nigeria, Xi Jinping - China, Mujica - Uruguay, Obrador - Mexico, Modi - India, Qaboos - Oman, Evo - Bolivia, Widodo - Indonesia.
I don’t feel like there really has been anyone that i consider "the best" really. Most have been down right terrible at worst, or subpar at best. Obama was ok, i guess. Zelensky is also ok so far at least. Most other major leaders haven’t been great imo. Bush is a war criminal, Xi is a wannabe dictator, putin *is* a dictator, merkel did alright in most things but played *waaay* to soft on putin and sold the german energy sector to him on a silver platter. All of the most recent PMs in britain have been a travasty. Macron hasn’t messed up to bad i guess. Trudeau also has been ok, but still not great. So far, this century has been defined by "mediocre or worse" when it comes to leaders.
How is Xi a *wannabe* dictator? Other dictators wannabe Xi. If this is a "best dictator" list, Xi's undeniably on it.
Where is the distinction that makes Bush "a war criminal" but Obama "ok"?
Are you seriously conflating drone warfare with lying about WMDs, overturning the longstanding policy against torture, and Blackwater with drone warfare? There is a concept of just war and Bush trampled that in ways that Trump couldn’t dream of.
Not drone warfare. Extrajudicial killings. The degree of collateral damage and civilian casualties, and the extent to which mitigation efforts were simply not implemented, is a separate, though also very grim, dimension of the Obama legacy. And yes, GWB foreign policy waa a travesty as well. One side of the aisle doesn't redeem the other.
>Trudeau also has been ok, but still not great. He most certainly has not been. He tanked the economy, ran up record debt and has been found guilty of corruption multiple times.
Trudeau is on par for corruption scandals with most previous PMs (Remember the senate expenses thing?). With regard to debt and the economy, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about a tanking economy and record debt outside of the context of Covid. If you want to criticise his economic record, then the real question is "how did he handle the covid economy compared to other leaders. Of course the debt went up, I would be worried if the debt was going down during covid, it was not a time for austerity. Also if you measure by Debt to GDP I think its disputable whether it actually is a "record" high.
>Remember the senate expenses thing? The thing where all the expenses were eventually found to have been proper, no wrongdoing was found and the PM himself was never even directly involved with the scandal. Not exactly the same thing. Trudeau is literally the first and second PM in Canadian history to be found to have violated a federal law while in office. >With regard to debt and the economy, it's a bit disingenuous to talk about a tanking economy and record debt outside of the context of Covid. We have a housing crisis that doesn't exist directly across the border and we just went into technical recession while the US is growing at over 5%. We are years past the last lockdown and are somehow in a technical recession despite being a resource-heavy economy at a time of high resource prices. Pretty tough to spin that as anything but a mind-boggling failure. >"how did he handle the covid economy compared to other leaders. Of course the debt went up, I would be worried if the debt was going down during covid, it was not a time for austerity. No one was asking for austerity, but there are degrees to this. The easy comparison is the financial crisis. Harper, with all party support in a minority parliament, ran a deficit of $56.4B at the height of the crisis. At the time, that was a new record deficit for Canada (at least in total dollars). At the height of COVID, Trudeau Jr's deficit was $327.7B, about 6 times higher. In fact, Trudeau's deficit that year was higher than the entire government's budget at the height of the financial crisis. There is pretty large gap between austerity and a budget deficit 6 times the previous record. >Also if you measure by Debt to GDP I think its disputable whether it actually is a "record" high. You are correct. As a percentage of GDP one PM did previously top him, although since that PM was also named Trudeau, there may be an emerging pattern here.
The senate expense scandal was laughably minor in comparison to Trudeau's 10 foot long laundry list of bad behaviour. 8 dollar orange juices are not even in the same arena as SNC. Chinese Interference, WE to say nothing of his 6 thousand dollar hotel stays, his Aga Khan vacations or his Cash for Access shenanigans. Trudeau has been a historically bad PM. He will be remembered as possibly the worst PM in modern Canadian history.
In mild defense of Trudeau * Handled the Trump years without too much damage * Handled the COVID epidemic pretty well, saving a lot of lives compared to other western nations * Canada is doing better on inflation than other western nations * Generally harmless domestic policy Certainly not the best pol, but competent and kind of average Liberal PM.
I mean, we did just see the economy contract for the second straight quarter while the US saw strong growth (+2.1% and +5.2% on those same quarters), and [our housing crisis has absurd price gaps between the US and Canadian side of split communities](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/om710u/house_prices_on_each_side_of_the_niagara_river_i/). That seems like pretty harmful domestic policy, especially when you consider the blatantly discriminatory laws that target parts of the country that don't vote for him, which has the country more geographically divided than it has been since his father was in office. Too often those economic or inflation comparisons get made against countries like European ones, who have a war raging on their continent disrupting supply chains and driving up costs of fossil fuels from Russia or food from Ukraine. Canada is a country on a different continent, who disproportionately benefits from high commodity prices, yet is somehow still middle of the pack as compared to European peers. When comparing to the US (the better comp on the same continent), Canada's economic performance has been really bad.
Thank you.
Macron has messed up and his popularity is pretty low Obama and zelensky: no way. Zelensky was elected to make peace. Obama didn't rein in wall street after 2008. ( Only later did people realize how much 2all street influenced his cabinet choices) Agree with the rest. Lula seems to have done the best for most people in his country. And defeated a Trump wanna be. Chinese system..for the sheer number of people moved out of poverty!
>Zelensky was elected to make peace Which would explain why his approval rating among Ukrainians, while fighting a multiyear war with no end in sight, is higher than, to my knowledge, any other Western Leader (82% approval I think)? If the people elected him to make peace, why do they approve of him after years of war? I understand that they elected him before the war started, but clearly Ukrainian sovereignty is more important to them than peace, and that is Zelensky's legacy (assuming he doesn't go on to lose the war)--maintaining Ukrainian sovereignty and hopefully not cedeing much, if any, land to Russia in the process.
>Only later did people realize how much 2all street influenced his cabinet choices It never ceases to amaze me how deftly the Obama PR team managed to sweep the unsavory aspects of his administration under the rug. Most negative commentary focuses on the number of drone strikes, but the degree of regulatory capture and revolving door appointments in 2008 are truly remarkable. The Citigroup memo released by Wikileaks in 2016 (just prior to the 2008 election and 3 days after GWB signed into effect the lavish TARP bailout) ultimately corresponded almost exactly to Obama's cabinet. The roster read like a depth chart for Wall Street's intramural softball league. The deals cut behind closed doors are still continuing to render real-world ramifications in the present era, as the culmination of fifteen years of quantitative easing and opaque financial system subsidization produce the liquidity crises and asset value dislocations we are seeing now. Not to mention the wholesale reimagination of the Affordable Care Act by private insurance interests, and the executive decision to abandon any attempt at cost reduction in favor of the mandate (which was itself a broken campaign promise).
Exactly...would not have known except for WikiLeaks etc. Same with not including public option etc ... GWB was far worse...but the people realized his mistakes
Lmao how do you make peace when the other guy invades you "completely"?
Jacinda Ardern. I’m not from NZ but from the outside looking in I thought she did a great job there.
What did she improve? What legacy does she leave?
Apart from stricter gun legislation, not much. Low COVID deaths is the absence of legacy, Jacinda Ardern will probably go down as a PM that gave New Zealand stability in a turbulent period. In all honesty though, it's hard for New Zealand politicians to make legacies of their own. Since Michael Savage established the welfare state, NZ has upheld it. NZ is also simply too small and isolated to affect the outside world, yet also extremely dependant on world trade and trends.
She also made first year of university free which for me as a first-year uni student going through her second year of government I was quite appreciative of especially since both my parents went to university for free when they went
My boss is a Kiwi and he hates her with a passion. Called her an old witch and he's quite liberal in his views.
[удалено]
>now we are back to stale white men leading It's wild when progressives are the ones just being openly racist.
Least racist progressive redditor
It’s a relatively isolated island; Taiwan had similar transmission rates in the first year. The other items were not particularly important (globally speaking) nor were the response remarkable, other than being workmanlike. Not saying she wasn’t effective, but I’m not sure she was particularly remarkable either.
Lula!
Kevin Rudd handled Australia amazingly well during the GFC.
Kevin 07... gone in 10
Sauli Niinistö. (Finland)
Tony Blair. Huge record of reforms. Minimum wage, equal gay rights. Peace in Northern Ireland. Sure start centres. Regional development. Devolution. Continuous economic growth throughout a premiership which was the longest ever for someone from his own party, and marked by the threepeat of sucessive largest majorities of any PM ever. Yes i hated him also. I just wanted to set up a game of come at me without mentioning Iraq.
Sadly the consequences of war in Iraq are both terible and far reaching.
Xi Jinping
Lula
Here in the US, Obama did a great job handling the economic crisis and Obama care has resulted in an additional 20 million people getting insurance. However, his foreign policy wasn't nearly as successful - and split government made passing legislation almost impossible during much of his term in office. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010 to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, allows the government to take them into receivership if they pose a threat to the economy, and limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit. Dodd-Frank also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to crack down on abusive lending and financial services. However, both Dodd-Frank and the CPA were to some degree defanged by the Trump administration.
Shinzo Abe
What was his greatest achievement?
Removing the unification church from japan
Guy sucked
Fidel Castro
None of them.
Angela Merkel
You cannot be serious
Make the case. Don't just be a brat.
No case was made for her. I live in germany where we are currently suffering through the seeds she sowed. EVERY major decision that was made through HER personally against resistance has been an utter disaster for the country. She decided to get rid of nuclear energy in a haste after fukushima resulting in a disastrously executed shift in energy policy, with higher prices AND worse security. That was HER decision. She opened the floodgates to uncontrolled immigration in 2015 against resistance. She even invited people to come, resulting in massive immigration into our welfare system without a plan or the capabilities to properly integrate people into our society. A lasting increase in crime has been only one of the outcomes. She drove us into energy dependency on russia against all the people warning against it. Every one of her legacy defining decisions has been a disaster. She had her hands on the wheel during the absolute golden years and somehow managed to come out of them with a decayed infrastructure. She has been an utter disaster for the country.
Bro really said that? The woman who turned germany dependent on russia for energy? The woman who played softball with putin and let him get away with WAAAAY to much fuckery?
Sure but it also made Germany an export powerhouse, even after weaning off of Russian energy over time Germany will still have that going. Before pandemic germany was on track to surpass Japanese economy and significant per capita boosts.
Merkel took over in 2005 and left in 2021. She oversaw growth of the economy until the 2008 financial crisis and has overseen only stagnation since. The german GDP was at 3.7 trillion dollars in 2008. It was only in 2014 that the economy had recovered and grown, only to fall again in 2015, and then have recovered again in 2018. She oversaw stagnation, not growth. The same is true for gdp per capita. It follows mostly the same trend, growth until 2008, stagnation with minimal growth until 2015, when it slumps, and only picking up significant speed in 2021. The only reason germany was anywhere close to surpassing japan was because japan has essentially not grown at all since 2000 (around 4.9 trillion dollars). It had a spike in 2012, and then promptly declined again and began restagnating. And germany still isn’t close to that. It only in 2021 broke the 4 trillion barrier.
She actually did a wonderful job bridging relations between western and eastern Europe. She had to walk a super fine line, keeping Germany's economy growing, facilitating the continuing reunification effort in Germany, keeping Putin in check, and also keeping Europes arms open for a potentially conciliatory Russia. She needed cheap gas and also couldn't play too heavily against Russia for the domestic crowd, many of whom were former DDR residents and distrustful of the west. I would argue that Putin considered her very highly and assumed her exit, along with Brexit, would weaken European unity in the face of his invasion of Ukraine. Regardless of current perceptions of Merkel, I have no doubt she'll be regarded in the future as one of Europes' most distinguished statespeople.
She single handedly destroyed Europe and put Europe firmly on the path of destruction ! Her legacy is : enabling unlimited migration into Europe, changing the fundamental character of Europe and making Germany heavily dependent on Russian energy.
Prospect Magazine claimed KK Shailaja (Kerala - population about that of Canada) & Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand) claimed to be top world leaders through COVID worst times - "The world's top 50 thinkers 2020,' https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/40533/the-worlds-top-50-thinkers-2020-the-winner.
No, she's a narcissistic sociopath and widely despised by her own country